FRAMING THE DEBATE--LESSONS FROM JEFFREY FELDMAN
© 2005 Jeffrey Feldman

Oh Baby · Why is the Senate Disoriented? · Stop Losing the "Claim Game" 
Getting Past the "Blame Frame" · How are Democrats Different?

FINDING MEMO

Democrats have focused a great deal of attention, lately, on the so-called 'Downing Street Memo.' A top secret British document, the Memo confirms that President Bush cooked the books in order to gain support for invading Iraq. When Democrats draw attention to the Memo, they do so because they see it as the ultimate 'smoking gun' against the Bush White House--that piece of irrefutable evidence that will force an end to the American occupation of Iraq.

Unfortunately, it's not going to work. The Memo will get some play, but then it will be business as usual again. Consider what happened with the Abu Ghraib prison photos. They produced some changes in the locations of a few prisons, and a few soldiers have been prosecuted, but the Bush administration continues to use torture and the occupation of Iraq goes on. So much for the smoking gun.

In reality, if Democrats really want to end the occupation of Iraq they must stop looking for smoking guns and start understanding how the GOP frames the debate.

The GOP Military Frame: The Empire Strikes First

In general, it seems that GOP idea framing Iraq is "imperialism" or the idea that America is made safest by expanding outward and taking strong control of those parts of the world that best serves its interests.

Three smaller value statements seem to hold this imperial vision in place for the GOP:

War in Iraq Means Safety at Home: This is the first big frame that the GOP uses to control the debate on Iraq. Even though most Americans think the occupation is not going well, the public still accepts this formula. It's easy to accept because it presents a simple choice. "Would you rather have suicide bombs killing Americans in downtown Pittsburgh or downtown Baghdad?" This idea remains relatively unchallenged by Democrats and until there is another terrorist attack on American soil or a new idea to take its place, it will hold.

America Must Spread Freedom in the World: Hammered home in President Bush’s second inaugural address, Democrats have long since given up on dislodging the GOP idea of "spreading" freedom--as if freedom was peanut butter. This idea seems to originate in the extreme right wing think tank called "The Project for a New American Century," which believes that, having won The Cold War, America has an obligation to use its power to control the world (I could try to make their philosophy sound more subtle, but that's pretty much it). “Should America just sit still while some other power takes control of the world?” Most Americans will blush if pushed on this issue, but they seem to be accepting this frame until the Democratic Party comes along with an alternative.

To Serve in the Armed Forces is to be a Good American: In many ways, this third frame is the most vulnerable to the GOP, and yet the most overlooked by Democrats. Decisions by the American government to go to war are supported by advancing the idea that it is good and right for Americans to serve their country through the armed forces. “My father served, and I believe it is important to serve for my country.” This idea comes under threat when more and more soldiers die and the country stops understanding what the war is about, but the idea is always there and the GOP has used it effectively.

Democrats, for their part, have wielded phrases like "support the troops," but have not made any attempt to claim the "service to country" frame on Iraq.

While it may seem counterintuitive to many Democrats, simply being "against the war" is not the best solution to the GOP’s imperial vision. Democrats must offer an alternative, compelling vision. The best way to end the occupation, therefore, is to re-frame the American military and foreign policy with progressive values.

So, what might this re-framing look like?

The Progressive Frame: Divided We Stand, United We Fall

Unlike the GOP imperial vision of America as the sole, overwhelming power in the world, progressives view the absence of "independence and unity" as the greatest threat to American safety.

The great myth of the Neo Con movement, perpetrated by people like Newt Gingrich and Paul Wolfowitz, is that American safety depends on America standing alone in the world and striking first at anyone who may threaten us in the future. This could not be further from reality. In fact, the world has been and will be safest only when the great diversity of sovereign nations is able to unify and work together.

The great moments in history when America has wielded its military have all been in the name of restoring that global unity. The shameful moments have been in the name of extending American empire. And when diplomacy and wars are waged against threats to independence and unity, the outcome is lasting and peaceful.

To achieve this progressive re-framing, I suggest these basic ideas:

Americans Serve When the Cause is Just and True: Democrats must quickly and effectively reframe the idea of military service. If the GOP frame is true, then the shrinking number of Americans willing to join the military must mean that American is running out of good citizens. This is obviously wrong. The problem is that the GOP frame of "blind service" to the military is not the way Americans see it. Instead, most Americans believe that serving in the military makes one a good American if the cause is "just and true." This is the great lesson of Vietnam: Many Americans joined up willingly to serve in the military, and those same Americans became disillusioned when they discovered that the American cause in Southeast Asia was wrong and that the reasons Washington gave for being there were untrue. Secrets divide. When Washington stops hiding behind secrets and starts telling the public the open truth about our goals in Iraq, and our plans to achieve them, enlistment numbers will shoot up again and Americans will once again come together to defend the nation.

A Smart Military is a Strong Military: American support for the war in Iraq is not dwindling because we are "losing" the occupation. Americans understand the importance of sacrifice. Rather, support is waning because the White House has made poor decisions that have divided the world, weakened our armed forces and turned American citizens against each other. Instead of shoring up our national defense at home and working with our allies to diminish threats abroad, the Bush White House dove into Iraq without a smart plan, leaving America unguarded, with untrusting allies and severely vulnerable at home. Our military is strongest--and our country is safest--when we make smart military decisions that unify our citizens and strengthen our relationships to our allies.

America has a Duty to Promote Independence and Unity in the World: America's top priority in defense of sovereignty is at home. And so the top priority for American should be homeland security. Rather than building up a force capable of defending Americans at home, the Bush administration has become obsessed with closing bases in order to create a new, mega-military capable of fighting multiple wars abroad. Or second priority is to aid in the defenc of independence in other nations when necessary. Hence, America must focus its foreign policy on resolving sovereignty issues wherever they arise, including the Middle East, Africa, and Asia. Finally, America must do whatever it takes to defend and strengthen unity. This means that America must be a leader in global diplomacy both in the United Nations and on its own. America should be criticizing the United Nations when necessary, but only when the United Nations impedes America's obligation to defend independence and unity.

So, as the Downing Street Memo captures America's attention, Democrats would be wise to remember that frames trump facts in most debates. Even the most startling of facts suddenly showing themselves in public won't be enough to fix the Bush White House's military mistakes.

To move towards ending the occupation of Iraq, Democrats must also begin to articulate their progressive vision of a strong, just and smart US military. Phrases like 'we support the troops' will continue to ring hollow unless Democrats are also willing to say--loudly and often--that "independence and unity are worth fighting for!"

Return to the top of the page
OH BABY!


"I am a progressive, patriotic American—and I am not pro-choice. If you believe in a strong, progressive America, you are probably not ‘pro-choice’ either."

Of all the rotten words Republicans like to throw at Democrats, the phrase ‘baby killer’ has to be the worst.

Republicans in Congress like nothing more than to tell the American people that a ‘Holocaust’ is being committed by Liberals in this country, and that over 30 million ‘babies’ have been ‘killed’ since the passage of Roe v. Wade, roughly twenty years ago. ‘Abortion on demand,’ they call it, or worse: a ‘culture of death.’

None of this would matter—and the country might actually be solving some of its serious problems with healthcare, education, or national security—if the Democrats had long ago found a powerful way to respond to the ‘baby killer’ accusation from Republicans. Unfortunately, the only response Democrats have used is the once powerful, but now inadequate phrase: ‘I am for a woman’s right to choose.’

I actually find it surprising that the GOP took so long to come up with a good phrase to deal with the Democratic line on abortion. But come up with one they did, and they will repeat and repeat and repeat it until the Democrats figure out how to reframe the debate.

Reframing the Debate on abortion is not about spinning the facts or packaging new wine in old bottles. The real crisis brought on by the GOP 'baby killer' line is not that it has challenged Democrats to move to the center (wherever that is nowadays). The problem is much worse than just political opportunism. The 'baby killer' line has fundamentally disoriented Democrats. It has forced Democrats into a state of confusion, causing them to lose touch with what they understand to be their own views and why they are willing to fight for a better America.

As a result, if Democrats do not come up with a way to deal with the 'baby killer' accusation, then it is not just the abortion debate they will lose. Most likely, the Democratic Party itself will crumble.

So, how should Dems deal with this issue? They should stop using the word 'choice' as a talking point on abortion, take some time to remember what they really believe, and then turn back to the problem of dealing with the GOP. That's how it has to happen. There are no short-cuts at this stage of the game when it comes to the debate on abortion. To win again, Democrats must do some hard work.
Read the Ruling


I am a progressive, patriotic American—and I am not ‘pro-choice.’ If you believe in a strong, progressive America, you are probably not ‘pro-choice’ either.

The reason I say this is because my position on abortion is based on my support for the Roe v. Wade ruling written by Justice Blackmun in 1973. And that ruling does not support a woman's right to choose in the absolute. That, in fact, is what the ruling argues against.

Curiously, while most liberals believe they support the Roe v. Wade ruling, they probably argue in support of the original Jane Roe suit against the state of Texas, which identifies a woman's right to choose as the only compelling issue in the abortion issue.

For example, how many people in this country--who are willing to take to the streets in suppport or against the Roe v. Wade ruling--have actually read the Blackmun arguments? Not very many is my guess.

I recommend reading it, not only to learn the issues, but because it is one of the most important pieces of literature in recent American history.

But just in case you don't have time to read through the whole thing, here is the crucial point from that ruling in which Justice Blackmun states what the abortion issue is all about:

"On the basis of elements such as these, appellant and some amici argue that the woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree."

There we have some confusion cleared up. It wasn't the Roe v. Wade ruling that calls for a woman's absolute right to choose an abortion. That was the argument put forward in the initial suit brought by Roe against the state of Texas. Blackmun states very clear that the the court does not agree that a woman alone has the right to choose in all cricumstances. And the reason why does not have to do with when life begins, but with the 'interest' of the state:

"Appellant's arguments that Texas either has no valid interest at all in regulating the abortion decision, or no interest strong enough to support any limitation upon the woman's sole determination, are unpersuasive. The Court's decisions recognizing a right of privacy also acknowledge that some state regulation in areas protected by that right is appropriate. As noted above, a State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life."

Here Blackmun is making another important point that Democrats often get wrong. He is saying that states not only have a right to regulate abortion, but they have an obligation to do so. They have an obligation to intervene to maintain high medical standards. The state, in other words, has an interest in safeguarding the health of its citizens by maintaining medical standards. And here is where it gets tricky. Blackmun also says that the state has an interest in 'protecting potential life,' which is a difficult concept for most Democrats to engage. Most Democrats would say that the state has no right to get involved in the potential life argument. But doesn't the state have more than the right? Doesn't it also have an obligation? Of course it does. Democrats argue all the time in different situations that the state should intervene in our lives. Even when it comes to reproductive issues most Democrats would not divorce themselves completely from notions of state intervention.

Think of it this way: imagine that a woman has just found out she is pregnant and decided to have the baby. She is six weeks pregnant. On the way home from the clinic, her car is hit by a drunk driver and she miscarries.

Most Democrats in this situation would be willing to admit that the punishment for that crime should be connected to the 'potential life' of the miscarried fetus. Democrats do, in other words, believe that the state should be interested and even obligated to protect potential life. And this is the point that Blackmun continues to discuss on the ruling:

"At some point in pregnancy, these respective [state] interests become sufficiently compelling to sustain regulation of the factors that govern the abortion decision. The privacy right involved, therefore, cannot be said to be absolute. In fact, it is not clear to us that the claim asserted by some amici that one has an unlimited right to do with one's body as one pleases bears a close relationship to the right of privacy previously articulated in the Court's decisions. The Court has refused to recognize an unlimited right of this kind in the past. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) (vaccination); Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927) (sterilization)."

Here Blackmun brings up another important issue. Do Democrats really believe that women--or anyone--should have the unregulated right to do whatever they want with their bodies at all times, without state regulation? I don't believe this. For example, if there were no state regulations at all on our bodies, it would be legal for people to remove their internal organs and, say, sell them for gambling money. Progressives would certainly support the regulation of the removal of internal organs--not its criminalization, but its regulation. And the same is true for abortion. There is a difference between sweeping criminalization and regulation. These aren't particularly profound arguments I am offering here, but the point is clear. Only when Democrats--indeed the nation--accepts the dumbed down GOP version of the abortion debate as an either or proposition (e.g. 'life' or 'choice'), only then do we lose touch with what we really believe as progressives.

Blackmun, of course, was not led down this path, but actually used solid progressive thinking to define a very sophisticated, soundly moral and deeply American position on abortion. Blackmun concluded that abortion is really about two issues that are always in tension with each other:

"We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation."

In Supreme Court legalese, 'important state interests' is a complicated way of saying that government most definitely has an interest in protecting the lives of its citizens. In the case of pregnancy, writes Blackmun, it sure is difficult to know when that interest comes into effect. But the interest is there.

Reading Roe v. Wade, rather than just mouthing support for it, is a challenge that all Democrats should undertake.

What Blackmun is teaching us is that Roe v. Wade is not just about a woman’s right to choose whether or not she has an abortion, but about two fundamental obligations that government has to American citizens.

The first obligation articulated by Blackmun is to not interfere with the private lives of children. This ‘right to privacy’ is a fascinating idea that emanates from what the justices call the ‘penumbra’ of the Bill of Rights. Basically, government has no right to stick its nose into the lives of citizens for unnecessary reasons. Privacy, according to Blackmun, exists in certain ‘zones’ and not in others. We do not, for example, have the right to decide how fast we want to drive—a highway is not a zone of privacy. But we do have the right to decide how we want to have a family, so reproduction is a zone of privacy.

The second obligation articulated by Blackmun is that of the state in guaranteeing that its citizens are protected. This is a tricky, tricky business when it comes to abortion because the question remains: when does a fetus become a citizen? Technically, Blackmun believes that a fetus becomes a citizen when it achieves ‘viability’—that is, when it is able to survive outside of the woman. Who has the right to decide this? Clearly, that right involves the woman at every stage of the pregnancy, but it also involves others at certain points: doctors, husbands, partners, parents, other children, and a whole range of people in a woman’s life.

And why shouldn’t it involve others? Democrats believe very strongly that it is the obligation of the state—the responsibility of government—to protect children. So, at a certain point over the course of a woman’s pregnancy, Democrats begin to take an interest in the well-being of the child as a citizen in addition to the health of the mother and the fetus.

For the GOP, the abortion debate is about sex and birth. It’s not about life, or about babies or families or anything like that. For the GOP activists so dead set on criminalizing all abortion procedures, the debate is about forcing women to have babies once those women have chosen to be sexually active.

When we take the time to read Roe v. Wade, it actually helps us to figure out not only what Democrats think and believe (as opposed to what they are currently repeating) and to understand better what Republicans think and believe (as opposed to what they say, and say, and say...)

Last Time I Checked

Does the GOP have an interest in the right to privacy? Absolutely not. They disagree with that right. They think it should not exist. The GOP believes that it is the right and the responsibility of government to make decisions about family planning for its citizens. This, by the way, is also what the government of Communist China believed.

What about the interest of the state in protecting children? Well, the GOP has no interest in this either. Think about it. Is abortion the only thing that impacts the lives of American citizens in this country? Do Republicans who believe that all abortion should be criminalized every watch the evening news?

Last time I checked, hundreds of thousands of American children were suffering from chronic asthma and other inner city diseases caused by GOP deregulation in business and the environment.

Last time I checked, American children were walking into schools with guns and shooting each other, a problem caused by the GOP refusal to place tighter regulations on the sale of firearms.

Last time I checked, American children were not being provided the skills they need to compete fairly in the world because the GOP is waging a covert assault on public education in this country.

Last time I checked, the disability benefits that protect American children when working parents are injured or killed were under assault by the GOP attempt to eliminate Social Security.

Last time I checked, children born into single parent households in America were being blamed for social problems such as drug use and crime, because the GOP believes that only a nuclear family can raise a moral citizen.

Last time I checked, the homeless rate of American children was rising because the GOP believes that public housing is wrong.

Last time I checked, America’s children where experimenting more and more with dangerous forms of STD transmitting sexual behavior because the GOP believes that educating children about sex is immoral.

We could go on all day with this list, but the fact remains that the GOP does not really care much about the state’s interest in protecting children. Citizens must protect themselves. That’s what the GOP believes.

So what’s the abortion debate all about for the GOP? What do they want?

Specifically, Republicans who oppose Roe v. Wade are opposed to any form of sex that does not lead to birth. Sex that does not lead to birth is immoral for them. Republicans believe that government should force women who have sex to have babies. That's their logic: having sex equals having babies. And it's government's job to make sure that happens. You want to have sex? Fine, but you have to have a baby as a result. Oh, and by the way: even if you're eleven years old and a repeat offender rapist forces you to have sex while holding a gun to your head that he bought at a gunshow, you still have to have a baby as a result. That's the GOP 'choice' on abortion.

But what about what happens after the baby is born? What do Republicans who oppose Roe v. Wade believe should happen to babies after government forces women to deliver? They don’t give a darn about them, that’s what. After a baby is born, according to the Republicans, the government has to butt out. Once the baby is born, Republicans believe that it is wrong for government to take an active interest. There is no compelling interest.

And so, the Republicans who oppose abortion essentially believe that the life of an American citizen is at all times a zone of privacy up to the point at which a child is conceived. At that point, privacy ends and the government steps in. Once child is born, privacy returns, government loses interest.

In a recent article on the subject, George Lakoff has argued that the attitude of the GOP does not lead to an absence of abortions so much as it leads to a rash of unwanted pregnancies. Indeed, if Roe v. Wade is overturned and the states interests in the privacy and protection of its citizens is abridged through the criminalization of all abortion, there will be a sharp and sudden rise in unwanted pregnancy. In other words, even though a woman may not want to be pregnant—either because she was raped or because she has severe health problems or because she the pregnancy resulted from inadequate sex education or access to contraception—that won’t matter. If the GOP’s post-Roe v. Wade America, women will no longer be pregnant just because they want to have a baby. They will be pregnant because the GOP will not tolerate any other outcome.

The solution to the Democrats’ problem on the issue of abortion is not to move to the middle or give up on women’s rights. None of that will help and none of it is honest.

Oh, Baby!

The solution is to stop treating the word ‘choice’ as a talking point and try the following new phrases:

PRIVACY AND PROTECTION: This can be a strong talking point. Democrats believe in privacy and protection. We believe in a woman’s right to choose, sure, but the larger issue is the right of all citizens to govern their own private matters. And we believe in protecting our children.

CHILDREN FIRST: One of the unfortunate results of making ‘woman’s right to choose’ a Democratic talking point is that it leaves the protection of children available for Republicans to claim. But Republicans actively seek to undermine the well-being of America’s children in so many ways. Saying that America must put ‘children first,’ can be an effective way of reframing the issue.

GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT FORCE WOMEN TO HAVE BABIES: I agree with Lakoff’s suggestion to focus on the GOP’s role in increasing the number of ‘unwanted pregnancies’ in America. But I generally feel that the word ‘pregnancy’ is politically difficult. I suggest instead that Democrats talk about how GOP policies 'force women to have babies.’ When presented with the phrase ‘baby killer,’ a Democrat could respond: "Babies? This debate is about babies alright. Government should not force American women to have babies. By contrast, government should care deeply about what happens to babies once they are born. Government should guarantee that women have fair maternity leave, that all children have access to vaccines, that families have affordable childcare, that children breathe clean air, can eat healthy food and are guaranteed a safe and sound public education. Government should not force women to have babies and then just step back let every man, woman and child fend for themselves."

The key in that last exchange is a strategic use of the word ‘baby.’ Simply put, if Democrats every want to control the abortion debate again, they need to reclaim the moral authority to use the word ‘baby’ in political debate. Republicans have it because Democrats refuse to say it. It’s true that the abortion debate is about much, much more than babies. It’s about privacy and protection above all else. But unless we stand up and reclaim the word ‘baby,’ then the Republicans will keep winning.

So the next time I hear a Republican hurl the phrase ‘baby killer’ at a Democrat, I expect to hear that Democrat respond with convinction: "Babies?! This debate is about babies alright…"

Return to the top of the page
WHY IS THE SENATE DISORIENTED?


Up or Down Disorientation. Lately, the Senate has been very disoriented.

In his zeal to do away with any opposition to President Bush's judicial nominees, Senate majority leader Bill Frist (R - Tennessee) has been disorienting the Senate by repeating the phrase "up or down vote." If you have a minute, tune into CSPAN-2 and listen to what Republican senators are saying. Sure, the faces look different, but the words are the same: "Up or Down Vote," says First. "Up or Down Vote," says Grasley. "Up or Down Vote," says Dole...says McConnell. It's hypnotic this latest GOP attempt to frame political debate to their advantage. With so many important issues at stake, all the Republicans keep saying is: Up or down, up or down, up or down, up or down....

And who can blame them? It's a powerful little phrase.

At first glance, it seems that the GOP logic is just this: "Up" means "Yes" and "Down" means "No." An up or down vote in this logic is just a "yes" or "no" vote. Senators are either for or against President Bush's judicial nominees.

But if we think about it, this "yes-or-no" idea is just one small part of what the GOP is trying pass off on the American people. The bigger idea is much more troubling.

The idea being advanced by Bill Frist and Co. in the Senate is that a Senate vote is nothing more than a "yes" or "no" to the will of the President. In this logic, all Senators are supposed to do is agree or disagree with what the President sends them. Thumbs up or thumbs down to the will of the President. Such is the life and work of a Senator according to the GOP majority attempting to take over Congress.

But, wait one cloture stopping second. That's not what being a Senator is about at all! Senators are not elected by the President. Senators are elected by citizens and are, therefore, first and foremost responsible to those citizens.

Voting in the Senate is not about agreeing or disagreeing with the will of the President. Voting in the Senate is about standing up for one's constituents. It's about being responsible to those who voted for the Senators. And last I checked, when the President votes for a senator, that vote is not any more important than the vote of anyone else.

Voting in the Senate is about speaking for and standing with one's constituents. When a senator votes, it's not about giving thumbs up or thumbs down, but about standing with the American people.

Remember the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution. Sure you do. That's the amendment, passed in 1913 during the Progressive Era of the United States, which mandated that Senators should be elected by the people. This is an amazing fact that most Americans do not know. Just a few decades prior to the passage of Social Security, the United States ratified the Constitution so that Senators were no longer appointed by State Legislators, but were directly elected by the people--and responsible to them.

Prior to 1913, the average Senator had no responsibility in particular to the people of his state (they were all men back then). The Senator was responsible to the people who appointed him--state party machine bosses and--to the leader of the party.

So, when Bill First stand up on the floor of the Senate and tells us that the Senators has a responsibility to the President, he is asking America to throw out the Seventeenth Amendment. He is asking us to turn back the clock to the time before 1913 when Senators didn't have any responsibility to the people, but were only responsible to the leaders of the party.

Anyone Remember the Seventeenth Amendment?

That's the real issue at stake in this "up or down" logic. Whether Senators should stand with the people when they vote or should just sign off on the will of the party boss.

The down side to all this "up or down" logic is that Dems are trapped in a frame that makes them the nay-sayers of the Senate. Frist and Co. are making it seem that they have a positive agenda and the Democrats are blocking the will of the people.

Nonsense.

But it's been tricky for a visibly fatigued Minority leader, Harry Reid, to get out of this "up or down" logic. So, rather than giving a long drawn out prescription, I've just decided to give Harry Reid a speech--a short speech for him to use on the floor of the Senate, free of charge.

The goal of this speech is to frame the filibuster issue in a new metaphor: voting is standing together.

Here's the Speech:

Who Should Senators Stand With?

Over and over again on the floor of the Senate--following the lead of Majority leader Frist--Republican Senator after Republican Senator has stood up and told the American people that the job of a Senator is to vote "up or down" on the proposals of the President.

In response to this idea, as the leader of the Majority party in the Senate, I turn to the American people and ask a very simple question: Who should the senators in this Congress stand with? Who should Senators stand with?

Do the American people truly believe that it is the job of a Senator to simply give a "yes" or "no" answer to the whatever proposal the Executive branch sends to the floor of the Senate?

They do not believe this.

Ladies and gentleman of the Senate, Americans know that the first responsibility of every senator is not to the President, but to the people.

That's right, to the people. Senators should stand with the people. That is the answer to the question.

But it was not always this way. It used to be that Senators were not responsible to the people. When the Constitution was ratified, Senators were not elected by the people at all. They were appointed by the states and sent to Washington with rhetorical skill, but predominantly loyal to the head of their respective parties.

Over time, however, and as a result of mounting corruption--the will of the American people rose up and changed the system in the Senate such that it was more directly responsible to the people.

A little less than one hundred years ago--in a time that seems like ancient history to most Americans, today--the great citizens of the United States added an amendment to the Constitution--the Seventeenth Amendment--which required for the first time that Senators be elected directly by the people.

For less than one hundred years, the people of American have cherished this system that has been first and foremost responsible to them.

Senators should stand with the people, not with the President.

The President has ample power and ample resources to achieve his goals. The people, by contrast, have the Senate as their resource.

By why, Americans must be asking, are the Senate Republicans so quick to cast their lot with the President? Why are the Sentate Republicans so quick to stand with the President rather than standing with the people?

Unfortunately, the reason is political ambition.

My fellow Americans, it has become all to clear to certain Senate Republicans that they have a far better chance of achieving their political ambitions if they stand with the President rather than standing with the people.

Time was, when a Senator had aspirations to become President of the United States, he would see the people has his main source of power, and he would spend every waking hour trying to court the people to achieve his goals.

Today, the President of the United States is perceived by members of his party in the Senate as so powerful that these Senators have chosen to forgo courting the people, and are appealing directly to the good graces of the President in order to achieve their goals.

This is truly unfortunate for the Republican Party, for the Senate, and for the American people. It is truly unfortunate when a Senator feels that he has more to gain by standing with the President than by standing with the people of this great nation.

And that, my fellow Americans, is what is happening on the floor of the U.S. Senate, right now.

How can the American people remind their Senators that it is their job to stand with them first--to do with the will of the people first--and second to be responsive to the will of the President?

While the Republicans do indeed have a majority in the Congress and hold the Executive branch, the nominees the President has sent to the Senate have on occasion been radically out of sync with the will of the people.

And when the will of the people is violated, it is the responsibility of the Senate to stand with the people in opposition to the President.

It would seem, my fellow Americans, that having been elected by the people, the Senators in the majority now feel it is their right to abandon that will and side with the President.

We in the minority will not give up our commitment to standing with the people.

Even if the Majority party succeeds at changing the rules of the Senate so that they silence the voice of the people--so that they, effectively, eradicate the Seventeenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States--Democrats in the Senate will stand firm.

When Senators vote, they are standing with the people of the United States. Often, the people stand with the President, but not always. And it is that productive opposition between the people and the executive branch that is the essence of American government.

Well, something like that.

The idea is for Reid to give a speech that reframes the very idea of voting through the metaphor of "voting is standing with the people," as opposed to this "up or down" frame being pushed by the GOP.

No matter how angry Dems get, the GOP will continue to hold the debate so long as they are allowed to frame the very idea of what the Senate is about.

The purpose of a Senator is not to simply stand with the President. Senators stand with the people. It says so in the Seventeenth Amendment and it is time to remind Americans of this idea in a clear, loud, and unified voice.

Return to the top of the page
STOP LOSING THE CLAIM GAME


My Opponent is a Cannibal The ability of the GOP to rally religious voters is a puzzle that consumes Democrats. What is it about the Republicans that leads religious voters to lean towards them rather than the Democrats?

Certainly, most Democrats would agree that Karl Rove's strategy of sending GOP operatives to "do politics" in Evangelical Churches has been a huge component of their success with this demographic. But the anxiety of Democrats on religion doe not end there. Recently, Democrats have been wondering if Republicans get more religious votes because, well--because Republicans are more religious. Even worse than not being religious, many Democrats believe that the party has a problem with being anti-religious. Dems make fun of religious people, they say. And this has caused woes for the Democrats in elections as the masses of religious people in America swing to the GOP, their feelings having been hurt at one point or another by callous Democrats.

That's the idea, but I don't buy it for a minute.

The idea that Republicans are "more religious" than Democrats or that Democrats have a problem with hostility towards religious people is just plain wrong. More than wrong: the charges are ridiculous.

My entire life I have been surrounded by religious people who are also Democrats, religious people of all shapes and sizes, all different kinds of belief, theology, rituals. Democrats have just as many religious people in their ranks as any other party.

So what's really going on with these bogus charges about Democrats being anti-religious?

As in any other pocket of the national debate, Democrats have been sucker-punched in the Claim Game.

The Claim Game is a key part of politics because it's the moment in debate when one player sets the terms of what "we" stand for, as opposed to what "they" stand for.

On some level, all opening salvos in the claim game take some form of this expression: "My opponent is a cannibal." Under normal circumstances, any self-respecting politician, when confronted with this claim of being a cannibal, would immediately reply: I am not a cannibal! But for some reason, when Republicans use this approach on Democrats to control the issue of religion, Democrats just lay down and take it.

That's got to stop.

Claiming Faith

Let's see how this Claim Game works in action. Take, for example, a recent interview of Pat Robertson by George Stephanopoulos. In response to a question about God's role in people's lives, Robertson said the following:

The people of faith in this country feel they're on a tyranny and they see their liberties taken away from them and they've been beseeching God, fasting and praying for years, so I think he hears and answers their prayers (This Week with Geroge Stephanopoulos, 1 May 05).

Robertson is great at playing the Claim Game against Democrats. His variation on "my opponent is a cannibal" is always to lay claim to the idea of "faith." Democrats are waging a "tyranny" against "people of faith." Democrats are cannibals.

What do Democrats typically say in response to this? Do they stand up immediately and say, "Wait a minute! You don't have the right to speak for all religion in this country. Religion is a part of my life, I'm a Democrat. Americans enjoy religion in their lives in many, many ways and Pat Robertson has no right to claim that he speaks for all of them."

Boy, oh boy, I wish Democrats would start saying that on TV, in interviews, in conversation. What stops us? I think Democrats are afraid of making a false claim--afraid of suggesting that they are "people of faith," when they are not.

But this fear, too, is a product of the way the GOP plays the Claim Game.

"On" and "Off" Logic Republicans aren't more religious than Democrats. They're just more insistent at telling people that they are. Moreover, they win this Claim Game by wielding the word "faith" in a very strategic way.

In the Republican way of talking about religion, Americans fall into two categories: people of faith and people not of faith. During President Bush's last press conference, he used this exact tactic.

But think about this for a second: Who lives in this simplistic world where one is either religious or not. I don't know anyone who lives in that world. In the world I live in, people have a complex relationship with religion. Religion is something that changes over time in a person's life. Sometimes we are religious as children, but move on as adults. Sometimes we lose our interest in religion, then return. For some of us, we don't really think about religion throughout the year, but then once or twice a year we do and with great interest. There are so many different ways to think about a person's relationship to religion, but this "on" and "off" approach is just not one of the ways that makes any sense.

What should Democrats do?

They should never let this "on" and "off" logic stand, ever. "There are so many ways to be religious in America. So many ways." If Democrats start saying that over and over again, then we can start beating the GOP at the Claim Game.

Claim Terrain

Ultimately, no matter how well we fend off GOP insults about Democrats and religion, none of it will do any good unless Democrats are willing to claim some terrain on religion. The best way is just for Democrats to start talking about their relationship to religion.

We don't need to talk about God or talk about church or the Bible or any of that. Just say something about the role of religion in your life.

Here are some phrases that I use:

"I'm from a Jewish family..."
"We keep Kosher..."
"When I go to Christmas Mass with my wife's family..."
"During Passover seder at my mother's house..."
"What I find fascinating about Orthodox Judaism..."
"As a child growing up in an all Jewish area.."

Try it out. Claim some terrain by simply putting some references to your own religious experience into the debate. If enough Dems do this--and if we don't let the GOP get away with calling us cannibals--we will go a long way in holding our own in the religion debate.

And we will do a great service to the people in this country whose relationship with religion has been ridiculed and insulted by one small section of the country's voters.

Return to the top of the page
GETTING PAST THE BLAME FRAME


When Blame is the Frame

One of the biggest problems Democrats face is the blame frame. On talk shows, in Congressional hearings, in conversation—in all the paces that politics happens, Republicans have become expert at luring Democrats into the blame frame as a way of scoring political points. And Democrats fall for it every time.

In addition to the challenge of finding the right words to talk about American values, Democrats also need to understand--and stop getting caught in--the blame frame.

What is it? How to avoid it? What's the alternative?

What is the Blame Frame?

Everyone has experienced the blame frame in one way or another.

The blame frame is what we are in whenever we argue that we are right and "they" are wrong. The blame frame is very common in personal relationships. One of the best discussions of it can be found in a little book published by the Harvard Negotiation Project called Difficult Conversations: How to Discuss What Matters Most (Penguin Books, 1999) by Douglas Stone, Bruce Patton, and Sheila Heen. According to negotiation experts, a key element of personal conflict between individuals involves a "What happened?" conversation that takes place in our own heads even before we talk to the other person. When we find ourselves in a difficult situation, we focus significant attention on first explaining to ourselves why the other person got us into the big mess in the first place. The next thing we do is vocalize that,"The problem here is that you didn't tell me exactly what to do!" and so forth.

We are already in the blame frame at the moment we decide to seek a solution by pinning responsibility solely on the other person's actions. The blame frame involves a certain fantasy of resolution: if we convincingly tell the other person why they were wrong and we were right, then they will accept our reasoning and the problem will be solved.

It never, ever works.

The solution is to stop blaming and lead the discussion towards talking through each person's contributions to the situation. Once we are talking about contribution rather than blame, we are out of the blame frame. Resolution often follows. This is because the blame frame tends to exacerbate bad feelings and our own personal identity issues. The blame frame presents the blamed with no way out other than shame. When we talk about contributions to a crisis, then both parties are rewarded by understanding.

But wait a minute--this doesn't sound like the same "framing" that we've been talking about since the Democrats first read George Lakoff's ideas a few months back.

Indeed, to understand the blame frame it is vital that we start to think about framing not just in terms of cognitive linguistics (Lakoff), but also into terms of conflict resolution.

In conflict resolution, the central challenge is to find a way of understanding the crisis that will bring both parties to the table to start the discussion that leads towards a solution. So long as both parties are in the blame frame--no discussion, no resolution.

The blame frame makes things worse and getting people past it is the key to getting the ball rolling.

A Second Way of Thinking About Frames Framing has long been a topic of interest in conflict resolution. A brief examination of Difficult Conversations reveals entire sections about framing and reframing, although their idea is very different from the cognitive idea of framing discussed by Lakoff.

Developing some skill with the conflict resolution view of framing is important because of the aggressive way that the GOP uses the media to assault Democratic candidates and ideas.

The problem of how the GOP repeats and repeats certain magic words that condition the American public to think of Democrats as "weak" or "elitist" or "pro-death"--this is still a problem. But another, equally important issue is the way these assaults throw Democrats off their game by luring them into the blame frame.

How many times have we seen this: Ann Coulter calls Democrats "treasonous" and a Democrat responds by saying that Republicans are really the one's committing treason.

Or Rick Santorum accuses Democrats of promoting a "culture of death" and Democrats respond by saying that Republicans are really the ones killing people.

It feels like the right response, but it's not. It just traps us in the blame frame.

But there's another problem: Democrats trap other Democrats in the blame frame all the time.

For example, Democrats who self-identify as "progressive" often lash out at Joe Lieberman (D-CT) for abandoning party principles. "We lost because of Lieberman and the DLC." Then a Democrat local to the DLC responds by saying that the Democrats really lost because of the radical wing of the party.

Every Democrat and every Republican in this country is so trapped in the blame frame that most of the time we end up accomplishing nothing.

What gets lost when Democrats focus on blame is that great American ability to solve problems.

For example, President Bush's Social Security proposal is so problematic and so financially irresponsible that most Americans disagree with it even after months and months of the President touring around to sell it. In Lakoff's terms, the GOP has rolled out the terms "crisis" and "accounts" to frame Social Security so that Americans see it as a threat to their livelihoods.

But as those Social Security frames have failed for the President, he has turned to the blame frame. He does this by blaming Democrats for being too scared to deal with Social Security. We got into this mess with Social Security, according to the President, because Democrats are too scared to do something.

How do Democrats respond? More often than not, we respond by saying that the real blame lies with the Republicans. After all, we got into this mess because of the huge deficits of the Bush administration. And that is true. But somehow, deep down, Democrats know that we don't fully win the debate until we get out of the blame frame, until we start problem solving.

How the GOP Beats Democrats with the Blame Frame

Time and time again, the GOP has beaten the Democrats when they successfully lure them into the blame frame, and the GOP has lost to the Democrats when blame frame tactics are fended off.

How does this work, exactly?

The answer is to translate the dynamic of a difficult conversation between two people into a national political debate between two parties and a third, silent party to the debate: the American public.

When the Swift Boat ads ran during the 2004 presidential campaign, for example, at first the damage done was that John Kerry's character was besmirched. That was a real problem because Kerry, wanting to be the leader of the armed forces, could not seem to get a way from the image of a man who undermined the armed forces.

But the real damage came from Kerry not understanding how to handle the blame frame.

Kerry's first instinct was to just avoid the issue altogether. Rather than allowing himself to be blamed, he just didn't respond. Bad choice. When blame is unanswered, it sticks.

On the other side were the Democrats who countered the swift ads with their own attack ads against George W. Bush. Those didn't work either because the American public was then deprived of reasonable, problem-solving ideas from the Democrats.

The solution would have been for Kerry to take control of the debate about war by turning the discussion from blame to contribution.

Switching from Blame to Contribution Putting aside blame to discuss contribution is fundamental act of crisis management leadership and it is a role that Democrats need to take up in every debate if they want to stay ahead of the GOP. The contribution frame is reached by introducing a very basic dynamic into an exchange. Rather than blaming the other person or party at the table, the goal is to lead both parties to an understanding of the crisis, and then take the lead in proposing a solution.

How has each party contributed to this situation and why? What else is involved?

Once Democrats answer those questions, the next step is simply to take responsibility for their own contributions and then push hard towards proposing a solution.

Take the Swift Boat case.

John Kerry should have immediate stepped up and taken responsibility for contributing his own contribution to a contentious time in American history. He should have said that he contributed both to the war in Vietnam and to the efforts to undermine the war in Vietnam. If he had done this, he could have then talked about how the unique issue of the war in Vietnam was not just who was fighting versus who was protesting, but the issue of soldiers who were now disillusioned with the war such that they turned to protest. That was the anguish of the Vietnam era--a generation inspired to answer the call to fight for their country, who were subsequently disillusioned by what they saw, learned and experienced. "I fought the war and I fought against the war. I answered the call of the my country and I called my country out to answer for what it had done."

The next step is to clarify how things could have been done differently from the Democratic perspective.

Kerry could then have said, "Sure I made a mistake throwing a few medals over a fence. But I was young, and when you're young in America you're allowed to make a few mistakes. Some of the mistakes we make as young people involve having too much fun and some of the mistakes we make as young people involve overstated political gestures."

And all that would have remained at that point would have been to connect Kerry's contribution to his leadership as a Senator. "Were it not for my contribution as a soldier in Vietnam, I would not have become a protester in Washington. Were it not for my contribution to those protests, I would never have dedicated my life to public service."

The rhetorical possibilities are endless at this point because the blame frame has been controlled and dismantled by switching focus to contribution.

The Bolton Affair: The Power of the Contribution Frame The contribution frame is so much stronger than the blame frame, that to simply understand it is to take a giant step towards more effective Democratic politics.

Of late, Senator Boxer has become a master at leading national debate away from blame and towards contribution. Specifically, the candidacy of John Bolton was derailed by Boxer's ability to focus the country on Bolton's contributions rather than Bolton's blame (although he may still be confirmed as of the writing of this column).

What was the big victory of Senator Boxer in the Bolton affair? She was able to convince Republican Senators to break ranks with their party and vote against the President's nomination for ambassador to the United Nations.

The issue that Boxer focused on was not Bolton's blame for having done X, Y or Z, but how his temperament contributed to the mess that our intelligence community finds itself in. The mess is an intelligence community that is ineffective.

Boxer could have gone back to the Iraq war and blamed Bolton for that, as she did with Rice's nomination. She could have blamed Bolton for deceiving the country on weapons of mass destruction. But instead, she talked about how his behavior contributed to the disfunction of a branch of our government, and how that contribution would also cause problems for us in the UN.

And my goodness it worked. Boy, oh boy, did it work.

The Republicans were forced to respond because once the blame frame is gone, there are suddenly real problems and real issues to solve. And what's even more important: the public sees those real problems, understands them, and gets very impatient if they are not addressed.

The blame frame casts a huge cloud of issues and the contribution frame clears that cloud up.

How To Avoid Blame?

We can never avoid blame, and we should not.

Real leadership is not about avoiding blame or assigning it to someone else. Leadership is about helping both parties to understand what has happened, and then stepping out in front with a solution.

In the short run, Democrats would be well-served to stop luring themselves into the blame frame. The mess Democrats are in is not the fault of one faction of the party of another. Everyone has contributed to the mess and the party will only start to win elections again if everyone contributes to the solution. The blame frame can be a very powerful enemy, or it can be the stepping stone to an unbeatable solution: unity.

In the long run, the more Democrats learn to dismantle the blame frame when it is thrust upon them by Republicans, the more powerful they will become at leading national debate.

Right now, the blame frame is being pushed with herculean force by the GOP against Hilary Clinton. They are running ads and raising money that will blame Hillary for every national problem since the colonists first stepped foot on this continent four hundred years ago. The GOP effort against Hilary Clinton will be the Spanish Armada of blame.

How should she defend herself?

Hilary needs to get very good, very fast, at reframing blame in terms of contribution. She cannot be lured into the blame frame.

The other issue on the blame front is the filibuster or so called "nuclear option." What Bill Frist and the Republicans are doing by trying to change the rules in Congress is launching a huge blame frame right at the Democrats in the Senate and the House. Will it work? It will work if House and Senate Democrats keep blaming the Republicans for destroying congress. Democrats and Republicans have always used floor tactics to delay votes and the public knows it. The Republicans have contributed to this problem in Congress, but so have the Democrats.

The problem is that if Democrats get drawn into a squabble about blame, then the public will not hear their important solutions to the real problems at hand.

Return to the top of the page
HOW ARE DEMOCRATS DIFFERENT?


That Dreaded Question

It can happen in an informal setting, such as a dinner or a car ride, or it can happen in the most public forums, such as a TV interview or a community meeting. It is the inevitable question: "What makes Democrats different from Republicans?"

Can we answer this question? More specifically: does this question make us tremble, stammer, loose control of the debate? It doesn't have to. The question about Democratic difference is often an earnest one, but it is also a question designed to stump. Answering it may not be as difficult as it seems once you've taken a minute to unpack what comes with it.

It's A Challenge, So Meet It!

This is the nightmare scenario: You've just spent thirty minutes pouring your heart out to a mixed group of voters, telling them everything your candidate has to offer, when someone in the back room stands up and asks, "I just don't see it. What makes Democrats different?"

Instantly you deflate. Oh, no! I've just spent a half hour pouring my heart out to this room and it's all be wasted. Nobody gets it.

This thought is often our first mistake. Rather than seeing this question as a challenge, we give into our own fears. What are we afraid of? In these situations we are afraid of being caught unprepared, of not persuading the room, of being unfocused the way the GOP and the media describes the Democrats. But none of it is true. The speaker who asks this question is using the oldest trick in the book of manipulation: play on the fears of the person you want to control.

In fact, there's nothing to fear. We should all welcome anyone with the courage and the energy to stand up and challenge us in a room. Nine times out of ten it means they have heard us and they want to hear more. So give them more, respond to their challenge with even more enthusiasm: "I am so glad you asked that question because that is really why we are here, tonight. The different between Democrats and Republicans is vast. We all know it. We can see it all around us. And the future of this country depends on it."

That's the first step: Meet the challenge and in so doing, you take back the room.

The second step is also crucial: Take control of the exchange again. "Absolutely there's a difference and our work is not done here tonight until every one of you understands how I see that difference. Thank you for the question."

We must embrace this question not run from it. Expect it, be ready for it and when it comes jump on it like it's the most important topic of the evening.

6 Possible Answers for 6 Kinds of Democrats

The next step is to immediately and passionately answer the question in a manner that's memorable. The trap that many elected officials or candidates seeking office fall into is to immediately discard the personal elements in their response to the question and reach for some objective, universal answer. That's the big trap. In reality, there are as many differences between Republicans and Democrats as there are Republicans and Democrats. The general rule is not what the person who asks this question is seeking. What they want is inspiration, persuasion, personal experience.

To be able to answer this question in a way that is truly inspiring, it needs to come from our own experiences, and so we need to prepare. That's right--you need to prepare this answer in advance in much the same way that you would prepare for questions at a job interview. And here's the question you need to be ready to answer, even though it is not explicitly asked: What experience in your life made it clear to you that you were a Democrat and not a Republican? In a few sentences, what happened in that experience?

At this point it is helpful to return to Lakoff's six different types of progressives or Democrats:

Socioeconomic
Identity Politics
Environmentalists
Civil Liberties
Spiritual
antiauthoritarian

While everyone's personal story will be slightly different, chances are they will fit into one of these categories.

So, here are six possible ways to tell people how you first learned the clear difference between Republicans and Democrats:

Identity Politics: When President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act in 1964, insuring greater protection under The Constitution for African-Americans, Strom Thurmond switched from the Democratic to the Republican Party. It was at that point that I realized: Republicans block the doorway of opportunity for other Americans, while Democrats work hard to make sure that door opens wider and wider.

Socioeconomic: When the Enron corporation collapsed, my grandparents lost a substantial portion of their retirement savings. In those days when my grandparents feared the worst--an old age of poverty as a result of the greed of powerful corporate executives--I saw the clear difference between the two parties: Republicans all seemed to be friends with the executives at Enron and worked to protect them, whereas Democrats were concerned about people like my grandparents, and worked hard to find ways to recover their retirement savings and to protect Americans from future Enrons.

Environmentalists: As a child, my family used to vacation to the shores of Michigan where we would eat the best fish in the world fresh from the lake. Slowly over the years, Republicans in Congress have gutted environmental policy and deregulated industry to such an extent, that it is no longer safe to eat too much fish from those lakes. And that is the difference between the two parties: Republicans fight to make it easier for big industry to pollute our Great Lakes, while Democrats fight to prevent big industry from destroying them.

Civil Liberties: After 9/11 I noticed that the Muslim students in the courses I teach slowly disappeared from the classroom. When I notified my Dean, she told me that many parents of Muslim students had pulled their students for the semester, afraid that the new laws made it unsafe for their children. In those moments when the country was in shock, the difference between the two parties became clear: Republicans worked to find ways to invade the lives of Muslim Americans, while Democrats refused to take shortcuts to national security that would violate the civil rights of American citizens.

Antiauthoritarian: During the difficult time when Michael Schiavo was making difficult decisions about the well-being of his wife, Republican leadership in Florida, the United States Congress and the White House worked to use their power to come between a husband and a wife. Along with so many other Americans, my deep grief for the pain of the Schiavo family was matched by my clear realization of the difference between Republicans and Democrats: Republicans are constantly working to change our Constitution so that government can control more and more of our private lives, while Democrats are constantly working to strengthen our Constitution so that government can protects our privacy.

Spiritual: In college I was deeply inspired by President Carter. His program, Habitat for Humanity, which builds houses for poor people in America, taught me a fundamental difference between the two parties in this country: While Republicans use religion as a pretense for discrimination, Democrats draw on the American belief in a greater good to bring people together to rebuild communities.

Boil it Down

Not all of these answers are going to work for everyone. I am not a spiritual person, but I am so inspired by Jimmy Carter that I tend to lean to a spiritual answer, using Habitat for Humanity to explain the difference between Democratic and Republican spirituality. And even though I was not yet born when George Wallace stood in that doorway, the idea of Republicans "blocking the door of opportunity" and Democrats "opening them up" is a solid answer.

What will your personal story be? It depends on your experiences and your convictions, on how you understand the core values of the party, and on where you are in your life.

At this stage in my life, I tend to think in terms of my core values being instilled in childhood experiences. But that will probably change, and we all need to be prepared to express ourselves in terms that are current and real to us in the given moment.

Now, having risen to the challenge of the question and responded with a short personal story that explains how Democrats are different, the final step is to boil it down.

"Boiling it down" means restating your story in a few words that someone can repeat easily to someone else. Sure, your story is great. But the when someone else answers the question, you want them to use their own story, not yours. The key to them doing that is boiling down your story.

Boiling it down sounds like this:

"Republicans only work for the wealthy, Democrats fight for the rest of us."
"Republicans block the door, Democrats open it up for all of us."
"Republicans use religion to divide, Democrats learn from it to build communities."
"Republicans help industry pollute, Democrats protect our land for everyone."
"Republicans work against The Constitution, Democrats protect it."
"Republicans are suspicious of difference, Democrats are passionate about equality."
Three Easy Steps

Being prepared for this big question about the difference between the two parties is half the battle. Being able to deliver a personal story and boil it down requires homework and practice. Sometimes our stories will work better than other times.

But if we speak from what we know and seize the opportunity to tell people about our experiences as Democrats--then we can move past the dry, uninspirint trap of trying to produce a universal rule. After all, the GOP has become very good at clouding those rules with a relentless spin machine designed to convince Americans that there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans.

The best antidote to propaganda is always to reach inside our own experience, and then reach out to the people seeking to engage us.

Return to the top of the page
Posted by Jeffrey Feldman on April 7, 2005 at 04:10 PM
© 2005 Jeffrey D. Feldman