Why are the guys who said environmentalism was dead now advising the Democrats on moral values? I never did understand all the stuff about their environmentalism criticism, but I know it very much irritated me.
First, here is what I read in The American Prospect today. I nearly threw up my arms in despair over this article. It sounds like the Third Way is about to have its way with the Democratic policy. Third Way..that is the DLC/PPI wing. It is a long article, so just a couple of bits. Then something about this group’s environmental stuff.
My fear is that getting us to back off issues that are vital to our country and concentrate on “moral values”, we will be playing right into the hands of the GOP. Maybe that is the intent of some. This is already happening, and if they have not even come out with their report yet….just imagine how much more moral stuff we will be talking. I am very much into issues right now, health care, jobs, equal rights.
I want our Democrats to leave the strategists like this behind and listen to us.
By the beginning of fall 2005, American Environics had presented its data to key Democratic leaders and a who’s who of Democratic interest groups: Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, the NDN (formerly the New Democratic Network), Third Way, Planned Parenthood, the Center for American Progress, People for the American Way, the Economic Policy Institute, and OMB Watch. They did so quietly, swearing their viewers to silence. (They will be releasing the data publicly early in 2006.) Few media outlets saw the presentations, but the Prospect was given an early copy of their research.
The data contradicted the slew of polls that show Americans to be strong supporters of Democratic issue positions, such as universal health care, despite voting habits that have made Republicans the dominant political actors. Instead, American Environics’ extensive plumbing of Americans’ attitudes laid out a darker, more nuanced vision of what the nation actually believes. Far from being a purely dour assessment, though, in it can be found the seeds of a new understanding of the interrelationship of culture, the economy, and politics — broadly defined — that should give progressives hope.
Sometimes I want to stand up and scream and shout, and I want to tell our Democrats to quit sounding hesitant, quit listening to strategists and just say what you think and believe. The article devoted a paragraph to the moral values of Tim Kaine. All well and good, but he is about to sign into law a bill that restricts gay marriage. And in the process his aide made sure to say that he does not approve of civil unions. That is going against the grain of the majority of the country, who do approve of civil rights for this group.
Now to the question of why is the same strategy group which environmentalism is dead, now advising the Democratic groups on moral and religious values. Here is more about those strategists who swore these groups to secrecy on the upcoming policy.
In April 2005, Nordhaus left his job at the opinion research firm Evans/McDonough Company to start, along with Shellenberger, an American branch of the Canadian market research behemoth Environics, which specializes in the study of consumer behavior, right down to the level of “neighborhood lifestyle segmentation.” Though such data are not collected on behalf of political figures, it’s the kind of information political operatives often use to slice and dice the electorate into ever thinner pieces. Similar data allowed Republicans in 2004 to make sure they targeted last-minute calls and fliers to domestic SUV-drivers, subscribers to hunting magazines, and women who watch Will and Grace. American Environics intended to use the detailed data its parent company had collected since 1992 for a different purpose, however: to challenge progressive interest-group orthodoxies and the progressive movement itself.
That is from the above article at TAP. I don’t understand all they are saying, it sounds like political spin to me instead of standing up for what we believe as Democrats. Always targeting.
Here is more about their previous stance the environment. I did not really like their attitude on that subject, and I feel a few spins coming out this year on issues and policies. None of it seems to be about the people…us…it just seems to be geared toward those we might reach who are not already party members. Getting tiresome.
From Salon:
Roiled by harsh internal criticism and confronting four more years of Bush, environmentalists face a dark night of the soul.
…”For instance, instead of presenting the nightmare future that will result if America doesn’t take action on global warming — soon! now! yesterday! — environmentalists need to change the conversation: “We don’t have to talk about global warming,” Shellenberger says. “What we need to talk about is what we want America to look like: what a sustainable, economically prosperous America looks like in the 21st century, and what we need to do to get there. And we need to articulate that in the context of a vision that does something about global warming, but also, more importantly to the average American, offers something more than that to them, offers them hope for their own future, for the kind of life they want to live.”
Werbach, who is friends with Shellenberger and Nordhaus, echoed that think-positive sentiment in his talk to the Commonwealth Club: “I have come to believe, after a decade’s work on this issue, that saving ourselves depends not on our ability to shock but rather to inspire.”
But if you have trouble imagining a message that could get millions of Americans excited and simultaneously fight global environmental destruction, you’re not the only one.
“It’s hard to get aspirational around Love Canal. It’s hard to get aspirational around the destruction of temperate rain forests around the world. You can’t gloss over the problems,” says Christina Desser, a member of the San Francisco Commission on the Environment who was the executive director of Earth Day in 1990. And it’s hard to get hopeful about the heating up of the climate. “Global warming is the hardest issue that I’ve ever worked on, and I don’t think that anyone who works on global warming thinks that we’re winning, but we also know that we can’t give up,” says Dan Becker, director of the Sierra Club’s global warming program. Baker, one of 25 environmentalists interviewed for Shellenberger and Nordhaus’ paper, felt misused by it. “I think that it’s hard to solve an issue without ever naming the issue,” he says.
They reveal something near the end of the TAP interview, which shows they are not listening to the core of the Democratic Party. I will put this portion, and it says it all about what they are doing. Twisting and spinning, tired of it. It is a different pollster, but same thing after all.
It convened a focus group of white, conservative, religious voters, and explored different ways Kaine could reach out to them.
That says it all.
The strategists are actually agent provocateurs working to attract more support to the Green Party. And it looks to me like they are doing a helluva job.
It requires fewer assumptions to just think they’re opportunist trying to get folks to adopt their shiny new ideas so they can become big shots in the party. It’s a lot easier to knock down a barn than build one.
I read their “Death of Environmentalism” paper and the reactions to it, and my thoughts are that there are many ways to accomplish the end of environmental protection, from promoting local actions to lobbying in DC for laws like Superfund and the Clean Air Act. Anyone who says the latter is not needed hasn’t been watching as Bush has eviscerated all kinds of environmental regulations – it will take a generation to repair the legal shields protecting our environment. All actions, local, national, and global, are pieces of the puzzle. Anyone who’s claiming to speak on behalf of the environment should have a sense in their bones that it’s messy and complex. Any too-neat solution is too abstracted from reality to accomplish much. So in the end I relegated their thesis to the pile of “nice ideas – what accomplishments do you have to show that it’s worthy of attention?”
As far as the Greens go, if I abandon the Democrats for them it will be because of actions taken (or not) by elected representatives, not some attempt to re-frame discussions for the sake of self-promotion on the part of a couple of fringe figures. The party has seen a lot of such people; what would drive me to the Greens is the fact that the party leaders choose to keep listening to them, rather than the voice of the people.
Well, of course, I was making a joke about the possible outcome of adopting these strategies.
I have an advantage in that I don’t have to abandon the Democrats since there’s nothing to abandon — I have always been an independent who never felt constrained to vote for candidates whose positions I do not hold just because they aren’t their opponents. No candidates ever automatically get my vote; they have to earn it.
Why fudge around when there is so much red meat laying around to tear into? I’m with Hackett on his telling it like it is.
Yup, that’s a surefire winning strategy for us. Run away from our own values.
I was actually struck by the second part of that sentence…
“We couldn’t even convince them he was a liberal once we’d done that.”
That says everything right there about the message machine of the Democratic party… or lack thereof and abundance thereof of the Republican spin on what being a liberal is all about…
I think it’s admirable that Kaine is opposed to the death penalty because of his faith. Good for him. It’s a liberal trait, as is much of the worlds religions when not perverted by the dogma of the powers that be. It is when the faith overtakes the persons ability to separate church and state within politics that we get into trouble.
But my main point is that the GOP has done such an effective job of painting all liberals, and therefore liberal values and traits as being spawned of satan, that these people in this focus group refused to believe that one could be a religious person (or a person of faith… or a spiritual person… or just a good person??) and a liberal at the same time.
Now that’s some scary propaganda to overcome right there.
either.
I use to think I was one, but I grew up. I don’t like exploitation of any kind and do not think exploitation is a freedom anyone should stand behind.
The ‘liberal’ tent is way too big and dark and murky in many areas.
I’m a progressive independent democrat.
We really should re-invent the liberal political definition for many reasons.
part where they disprove their own theory! “Once they understood his values…” we couldn’t even convince them he was a liberal.”l
In other words — explaining values WORKS. Sheesh to them.
If those listed in the article are dumb enough to buy into yet another group of high-priced slicks, more power to them. With an estimated audience in the millions, they’d be better served enlisting the help of experienced experts in any given field on any number of blogs.
S’ok. Anyone who failes to understand that the pyramid/top-down construct has gone the way of the DINOsaurs deserves wake up to a loss come November.
I want to address the last quote about the election of Tim Kaine in Virginia. I worked hard to get Tim Kaine elected and I have taken crap for it here and at the Big Orange. However I stand by what I did.
I just want to point out that just because you inoculate yourself against charges that you’re “too liberal” doesn’t mean you can’t behave in a liberal way. In the past several years we have seen a LOT of Democrats lose heartbreaking elections because – despite stuff in their actual records to the contrary – Republican smears managed to convince voters that they were “too liberal”, “anti-Christian” and all manner of other things.
Tim Kaine is Catholic. Being Catholic is different from being an evangelical Christian. Someone on some blog put it better than I can explain it: these sort of Catholics know we’re all sinners. They’re not eager to impose their moral values on the whole rest of the world, or punish people for not living up to their own personal religion. But, it does influence their lives and everything they do.
I’ve heard Tim Kaine talk personally about his religion, how it’s influenced him, and how it guides him as a public servant. And I don’t have a problem with this. I think he’s wrong on the gay rights issue. I think he’s wishy-washy on choice, but that he’s more pro-choice than his campaign was willing to admit in public. There is a lot more at stake here though, a lot of other important issues. There is the immigration issue which is closely tied to racial justice – something Tim Kaine has a very strong commitment too. He’s not going to allow Virginia to fall prey to racist anti-immigration policy. And then there’s the governance of the state generally. You know that saying about how a budget is a moral document? I have absolute confidence that Tim Kaine’s budgets are going to be documents that reflect MY morals.
What it all comes down to, is just because you do some work to figure out how you can get white, rich, conservative men not to hate you, doesn’t mean that you have to compromise your principles. I don’t believe Tim Kaine has done so. This is the mistake people make when they think they can reproduce his faith thing to win their own elections. This is really who he is. He did not become Catholic because of a focus group. He didn’t work as a civil rights attorney because of a focus group.
There are Democrats who do this – who sell out their own principles (and ours) because they think it will make them conservative friends. And it doesn’t work, and it hurts us all. But, look at the other side of the coin. If you can find a way to get conservatives to trust you, or at least to believe you aren’t the anti-Christ, without compromising any of what you believe in… isn’t that a good thing? In my book it is.
Tim Kaine is going to be a really good governor. I’m proud to have him for mine.
This is from his inaugural address:
You know what they say, context is king. Here in Virginia there are many who want to shut Hispanics out of living in their communities, out of working good jobs, out of every aspect of community life, because they don’t want them around. Concern about “illegal immigration” is just the excuse they give. It’s racism, pure and simple, and Tim Kaine has come out against it.
He’s not a die-hard progressive like me. But he’s damn sure not a right-winger either, nor a sellout. He has principles that I share and he isn’t afraid to fight for them. Like I said. I’m proud to have him for my governor.
That same sense of community is required of us today. We must include all Virginians in our efforts.
But apparently “all” doesn’t mean everybody.
This amendment’s vague language will affect all kinds of partner rights.
This is quite a bit more than being wrong about gay rights.
He also has some principles (if you could call it that) that I don’t share.
The larger point remains unchanged. Just because he looked for ways to convince rich white men that he’s not evil, doesn’t mean he’s evil. Gay marriage wasn’t really a big issue in the campaign.
Thank you for calling this particular legislation to my attention, though. It had not been on my radar screen. I need to look into it, because if the characterization by Watts and her staff is accurate, then he has a ready-made excuse to veto it based on things he said during the campaign. I’ll probably be writing a letter.
They were rather upset about it. I was raised in the church, and I have seen how the Baptist church has been hijacked…how it has become so intolerant. I am glad VA has a Democratic governor, I just hate the intolerance.
Sometimes it takes courage to stand up for what is right, and not give in to the religious, conservative community. We have done too much of that.
When my friend was banned from MyDD for posting an article about Tim Kaine’s religious views, it left a bad taste in my mouth. I am not critical of him as a governor or person, I am critical of strategists who seek only the views of white Christian conservatives.
Here is the article:
http://www.washingtonblade.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=4540
“The Virginia House voted 73 to 22 to approve a constitutional amendment banning equal marriage rights for gays. The proposal must be voted on by the Senate and signed by Gov.-elect Tim Kaine (D) before it can go to voters in November.
Gov.-elect Tim Kaine intends to sign a bill calling for a referendum banning gay marriage in Virginia. (AP file photo)
Kaine spokeswoman Delacey Skinner said that the governor-elect will sign the bill to call for a referendum. Kaine supports the amendment and opposes civil unions, she said. She added that he is interested in discussing measures “to make sure people can still be able to contract with each other.”
However, efforts to limit the scope of the vaguely worded amendment were defeated. Del. Kristen J. Amundson’s (D-District 44) amendment, which received only 35 votes, would have eliminated all language except for: “Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions.”
Thank you Andi. Thank you thank you thank you.
I can’t even come to the “liberal” blogs anymore without fucking crying. I am still too angry to craft a civil post about gaybashers who call themselves Democrats, and everything I’ve written for the past hour about it most definitely runs afoul of the prick rule. I am running out of civility, I think.
I’m sorry you have been upset by what I wrote. I believe in the rights of gay people to do everything that straight people can do, including marry whoever the hell they want to.
I don’t agree with and cannot support Tim Kaine’s position on this issue, but he is with us on some other very important issues, and his opponent was not.
Anyway, I really appreciate you not going off on me because of this. I am assuming you didn’t mean I was the gaybasher, anyway.
it seems to be to sacrifice gay rights.
People were willing to support Tim Kaine and not insist that he change his position. I’m assuming they went along with this because they thought gay rights were a fair trade for getting him elected (just like the acceptance of his so-soposition on abortion). The kind of trade-off might be pragmatic and seen as facing facts but I can’t and won’t accept it as a good thing.
He said, and I was physically in the room with him when he said this, that he didn’t support gay marriage, but that he also did not support any new laws that would further restrict the rights of gay people because they were gay. Last session, the state legislature had been considering making it harder for people to set up their own legal contracts to approximate some of the benefits of marriage. Tim told me and a bunch of other people to our faces that he opposed that, based on the fact that gay people had the right to make whatever legal contracts with each other that they wanted to. A civil rights argument. Albeit one for the status quo.
If he’s getting ready to sign a referendum that is counter to what he told us on that day, I’m going to be very pissed.
Well, I guess he can claim that this won’t change the status quo but supporting an effort to make a denil of rights to homosexuals part of the state constitution is quite a change to the status quo, regardless of whether it effects contractual arrangements.
You’re right. Like I said, I think he has a good argument he can use for vetoing it and not even be inconsistent with his anti-gay position as previously stated. I’m not happy about this.
Make no mistake about it, furryjester, your pride in having a bigot represent you is something I personally find both repugnant as well as immoral. And politically, it squarely situates us as enemies.
Kaine is not OPPOSED to religion. He supports religious freedom.
Here is the question:
When does the government stop telling the church who they can marry? Right now it is the Unitarians. Who next? Will we be telling the Presbyterians they are wrong about marrying people because somebody disagrees?
The government role in the marraige business should be very small indeed – blood tests, age tests – because the government role in religion should be very small.
The Thugs have people convinced that being Democratic is being opposed to or embarassed about (like Kerry was) religion. They have used this, ironically, to undermine religious freedom.
Advocate religious freedom. Don’t even use the word “gay”. Because if they win with gays do you think women who have had abortions, women who are divorced, anyone who is “different” as defined by Fox News is somehow safe from this rhetoric?
I completely agree. Thanks for the comment.
Moral values
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10855757/site/newsweek/
Bumped into this article and poll yesterday re politics and Baby Boomers vs not-Baby Boomers.
What most drives your political beliefs?
Boomers – 38% ideology; 38% morals, 5% religion.
Yesterday I could see the non-Boomer results which were very similar on this question, but today I can’t so I don’t know the current figures.
For me, the central problem with strategists like these is that, in the name of supposedly advancing progressive ideas in ways they believe will (erroneously, in my opinion) win more votes for their candidates, they conclude that pandering to peoples’ basic denial will bring such results.
They don’t get it that if you deny the realities underlying the problems we have to deal with that you can never devise effective remedies to repair the damage.
The absurdity of their none too clever rhetoric is that it’s designed with the goal of winning elections in mind, not to solve the problems that are facing us. As such, all their talk is just pure meaningless bullshit, and it will fail even to win the votes because it’a based on the same avoidance of reality that the Repubs employ. Thinking Dems don’t want these sorts of deceptions, they want substance, they want ideas that are responsive to the problems. We will not vote for hacks who use the double talk but who propose nothing real.
what they’re trying to disprove!
“Once people understood the values system that the position grew out of, they understood that’s he’s not a liberal,” says Brodnitz. “We couldn’t even convince them he was a liberal once we’d done that.”
Values, darling, VALUES rule the day.
How about that? Just what Lakoff was saying.
Laissez les values roulez!