The hard right will always find a way to make their goals sound reasonable, even a popular imperative: uniter not divider; fiscal conservative, defend our borders, restrain government. So don't try to argue that their stated goals are undesirable: instead attack them for failing to live up to their word. They're not delivering what the people who voted for them wanted; worse, they're skilled at disguising what they're doing (for example fiscal conservatives who pile up massive deficits.) The goal of this line of attack is to peel some moderate conservative voters away from the phony-conservative party.
Why don't more Americans want to distribute more wealth down to people like themselves? Because every American wants to be rich, so attacking the rich won't work unless the people are already pissed off. That was the secret of both Sanders' and Trump's success: each articulated a credible story, consistent with people's recent experience, that the deck is stacked, the game is rigged, and the rich aren't just smarter or luckier, they've become less scrupulous. That was FDR's line, and it gave him a four-election winning streak.
About taxes: "Nobody likes taxes. I don't like taxes. But what's done with the tax money--national defense, schools, roads, medicines--is what guarantees the future of our children and our nation. The idea that everyone contributes in fair measure is the cement that holds our Republic together. Now, the rich--the people who can most afford it--are opting out. And they're paying off a lot of hard-right politicians to help them."
Pin labels on the opposition, and make them waste their time trying to refute it. Democrats too often act on their belief that it's not nice to call people names. Well it's even more not-nice to let a bunch of villains run the table. Call wickedness for what it is. Hell, even Bush Sr., one of the least convincing politicians of modern times, managed to make the very word 'liberal' an epithet.
Don't try to counter the hard right's moral clarity (perverse though it is) with moral complexity--as in saying "it's more complicated than that"". People don't want to have to think complexities through. Offer an alternative, more convincing, better-aimed moral clarity. The only memorable thing Gore said during the Florida debacle was something like "in our society, the weak have the same rights as the strong." Too bad he was too stiff to build on that. That's the kind of clear moral and practical statement that could counter-act the hard right's Ayn Rand crap.
Americans (or a substantial slice of voters) like a president who can pull a fast one when necessary. The history of elections since at least 1952 shows that each time, the winner was the one who gave the impression of being willing and able to be a bit sneaky and ruthless. Nobody believed in 2000 that the guy with the smirk was some sort of Honest Abe stiff; they knew he could be sly and a lot of them liked him for it. Obama also benefited from coming across as a guy who wasn't anybody's fool; and Trump made his evident slyness a prime asset. So Democratic candidates shouldn't go overboard with the stiff and upright routine.
It's hard for Dems or liberals to state principles while trying to come up with something new; it'll always sound ungrounded and untested. Conservatives don't have that problem because by definition they're hearkening to and conserving eternal virtues, and projecting those forward. Dems need to identify some eternal virtues of their own to project forward: maybe 'fairness,' 'level playing field,' 'getting ahead through hard work,' 'the Bill of Rights,' 'civil liberties,' 'patriotism in action not in word,' 'the job of the strong is to protect the weak,' phrases like that.
The hard right has managed to paint the Republican Party as the champions of rugged individual freedom and privacy. But Democrats should own the personal freedom issue (though admittedly it would be easier if the Clintonites hadn't sunk neck-deep into the surveillance state). How hard is it to shout "The hard right that's taken over the Republican Party wants to take away your freedom, butt in to your home, paw through your e-mails and confidential records. A few of them, I guess, really do want to do it for national security. A lot of them want to do it just because they can. Are we going to let them?"
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
2
1
1
