Washblog

And those are security and civic participation --

Liberty and opportunity don't do us much good if we're all dead from the impacts of climate change or other environmental/economic/social collapse.

And the only way we avoid the malign interests from taking over, as they have now in so many ways, is by making a better place for civic participation, making it a priority of government.

by noemie maxwell on Sat Mar 11, 2006 at 09:48:18 AM PST

---

I can't stress enough: we need to frame the debate.

Defining ourselves in terms of our opponents is a losing proposition... and is why the Democrats keep losing (plus, once you get off of the top of the ballot where the mark rate is near 100%, a vote against your opponent is not necessarily a vote for you, that is to say a half vote).

Of course, the risk is that the Democrats have an identity. I, too, worry that too many of our "leaders" seem to find this to be anathema.

But how can we have a platform which recognizes the myriad unenumerated issues without it? How can we have a ticket without it?

by m3047 on Sat Mar 11, 2006 at 10:13:13 AM PST

---

1. there is a guy on kos - feldman - who diaries about framing a lot. he has his own site.

http://www.frameshopisopen.com/

2. carol and many others on http://groups.yahoo.com/group/democracyforwashington/messages have yakked about what should be the message / how to do the message.

2.There was a GREAT diary on Kos leveraged from a Molly Ivans piece about the lame-o-crats.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/3/10/16713/2480

here is a good comment from that diary:

"Missing the point (4.00 / 27)

As Molly says -- there are 40 good ones to run on and we try to pick 39.

She picked three - b/c Murkins are too stupid and ADD riddled to focus on more than that.

Add more to her three and no one can remember what you are for and it lets the pricks like ken Melhman say "they don't stand for anything." and get away with "tell me what they stand for" and have John and Jane Q's ignorance stand as a proxy for a lack of agenda.

Stick with three.  Yours and my other issues will be taken care of.

It's a "partial repeal of the First Amendment" not a "flag burning" amendment.

by MRL on Fri Mar 10, 2006 at 03:00:53 PM PDT"

rmm.

http://www.liemail.com/BambooGrassroots.html

by rmdSeaBos on Sat Mar 11, 2006 at 10:36:39 AM PST

---

I've been putting some thoughts into these issues lately as I'm going to be seeking a local public office this fall (I'll omit which one for now ;)

I think that the most basic belief of the Democratic Party is this: the people are the government. From this simple idea all other spring.

If people are to successfully govern themselves they must have liberty:

• all persons are created equal, and they all have equal ability to govern themselves
  
• every person's say in government, their votes, deserve the most protection possible both in the voting and in the counting
  
• freedom to speak their minds on the issues that confront them
  
• freedom from having any central athority (the government) search their property without the consent of an impartial group of citizens (the judiciary)
  

If people are to successfully provide for themselves, so they might govern they must have opportuity:

• the education we give our children must prepare them as citizens and people, so they can join in the governance of themselves
  
• everyone should be able to persue their chosen profession without forced endebtedness to other people or organizations
  
• our economic system should benifit most of the people most of the time
  

And on and on. If we want to spread these ideas we need to find a neat package that sums it up. Fortunately we already have it, and almost everyone already knows the words. Now don't cringe too much when I say that we should be using the plege of Allegiance as the starting point for Democratic principles. The original wording of the plege was neither an endorsement of religion or nationalistic (the words "the Flag of the United States of America" and "under God" weren't added unitl later)

In the Pledge of Allegiance a Short History we can find the ideas we've been talking about are the basis of the pledge. I think the words of Francis Bellamy, the author of the original plege, say it best:

"It began as an intensive communing with salient points of our national history, from the Declaration of Independence onwards; with the makings of the Constitution...with the meaning of the Civil War; with the aspiration of the people...

The true reason for allegiance to the Flag is the 'republic for which it stands.' ...And what does that vast thing, the Republic mean? It is the concise political word for the Nation - the One Nation which the Civil War was fought to prove. To make that One Nation idea clear, we must specify that it is indivisible, as Webster and Lincoln used to repeat in their great speeches. And its future?

Just here arose the temptation of the historic slogan of the French Revolution which meant so much to Jefferson and his friends, 'Liberty, equality, fraternity.' No, that would be too fanciful, too many thousands of years off in realization. But we as a nation do stand square on the doctrine of liberty and justice for all..."

by Nathan Horter on Sat Mar 11, 2006 at 12:32:11 PM PST

---

Democracy came at a time in history when there were two powers in society: the merchant class and the sovereign. It was invented as a way to limit the powers of the sovereign and allow the merchant class to run the economic affairs of the country. The American experiment took the system of English law that created this balance of power and lopped off the sovereign (although not the way the French did). Thus there was only the merchant class, governing itself. "Laissez-faire" ideology comes from the old idea that the merchant class had to have independence from the sovereign to operate and democratic government provided that independence. The idea that a "market" economy was on one pole and a "command" economy was on the other also came from the concept that economies had to exist separately from sovereign authority.

The truth, however, quickly became that government was essential to the management of the economy. There are indeed two kinds of economies: cooperative market economies and uncooperative market economies. Democratic government is the best way to increase cooperation in the economy and it has proved so.

The everyday relationships among people need relatively little government intervention, and anyway the systems which very different governments employ are actaully relatively similar in this sphere. Even Sharia law bears a resemblance to American jurisprudence. But the laws regarding commerce - regulation and arbitration of contract disputes, distribution and management of financial resources - couldn't be more different from society to society.

Social justice doesn't come from noble impulses. A state which relies on contracts must treat all contracting citizens as equals. Once that notion takes hold, the demand for equality is echoed everywhere in society. Nobody can point to a place in society and say "Here: people are unequal here and it works great".

But forget the "why" of equality and it starts to become hollow. The "why" is to increase cooperation. We are equal that so we can live out the promise of our nature as social creatures. We are equal so that we can maximize reciprocal altruism and make things better.

So now the best use of government is to make things better - not as a parent, but as a forum for equals to come together, decide what's best and support each other. Modern democracy isn't a judge or a father. It's a place for us to come together and do better for everybody.

by dlaw on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 02:13:26 PM PST

---