We give a special nod to Jim Webb, both for his economic positions and coming out and calling the occupation of Iraq an "occupation." We celebrate those in the media who call the civil war in Iraq what it is.
Lakoff's takeaway list from the election is worth committing to memory for every progressive activist. Basically it amounts to this: stand up for the progressive values in which you truly believe, and don't be afraid to point out the massive failures of conservatism, not only becaue it's the right thing to do, but because it works!
More below the fold:
The morals of the election are these:
* Progressive values-based reframing has begun to work, because it has been paired with authenticity (saying what you believe) and with framing that highlights the very real traumas affecting the nation.
* The Democrats who won Republican seats did so by running on progressive values. Swing voters, who have both sets of values, responded to their campaigns based on progressive values they authentically believed in.
* The party, as a party, therefore should not be moving to the right and adopting conservative positions, even if a number of party members happen to hold such positions. To move to the right is to give up any claim to a consistent moral vision at the heart of the party. At the same time, the party, as a party, need not, probably should not, and certainly will not adopt all progressive positions.
* The role of the progressive activists, grassroots, and netroots is to promote progressive values to biconceptuals both within and outside the Democratic party GÇö to activate the progressive beliefs they already have and to extend them further by speaking a progressive language and using progressive values, ideas, and arguments. The goal is not just to move the Democrats in a more progressive direction, but to move Republicans and independents in that direction as well. The idea is to benefit the nation, not just the party.
* A populist progressive movement has begun and it needs to be both studied and nurtured.
* And conservative values and practices, when they lead to people getting hurt and our democracy undermined, have to be attacked overtly. The villains and their villainy have to be named. What's wrong with conservatism has to be shouted from the housetops. Bob Burnett has made a good start in a paper at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
We are at the epicenter of an emerging outpouring of progressive power that is both historical and transformational. Everything you do matters. The more you learn and stand up for the true American progressivism, the more chance we have of moving America forward brining our nation back towards true greatness.
In the case of Jim Webb's nearly miraculous U. S. Senate election victory here in Virginia, his "populist progressive" beliefs represented a slight shift to the right for many Democrats and received the necessary, positive attention of enough independents and Republicans.
I can see nothing wrong with that, and similar small shifts toward the political center produced many Democratic winners nationally as well. Call them/us "centrists" if you prefer.
Regardless, one result is that the "people's party" correctly matured incrementally and became more responsive to the people. Nothing wrong with that, either.
Obviously, extreme so-called conservatism hasn't been working in this country recently.
Let's continue to build on our Democratic successes in 2007 and beyond.
Thanks!
Steve
Here's the example I love to give. There's a book called "The Nightengale's Song" about Webb, McCain, oliver North and other great leaders who emerged from from their Annapolis generation. The title comes from the fact that until a Nightengale hears its own song, it won't sing, but once it does you can't shut the damned thing up. Likewise, an entire generation of Viet Nam vets remained silent in politics until Ronald Reagan started to praise their accomplishments, then you had incredible leaders getting involved in politics.
The critical point is simply that both progressive values and conservative values are present in the American cognitive makeup. Without strong leaders stepping up to represent the critical core values of empathy and responsibility, progressive values lay dormant.
What the conservative movement has done so well is they have actually STOOD UP and animated those conservative values in the electorate.
This year progressives sung the song of progressivism and 55% of the electorate sang back with their votes in one of the greatest landslide victories in American history giving Democrats a greater margin in the house than the Gingrich Revolutionaries ever held, and they didn't do it by being conservatives (e.g. Harold "I'm the guy on the right" Ford). They did it by singing progressive values.
Like Shuler and Casey, swing voters are biconceptuals, with both conservative and progressive worldviews in different areas of life and with both available for politics. How did these biconceptual candidates appeal to biconceptual swing voters? By taking progressive positions, and campaigning vigorously on them. How did this work? They activated the progressive values in the brains of swing voters.Why did it work? Because swing voters, being biconceptual, already had many progressive views. A large proportion of those identifying themselves with the word "independent" or even "conservative" happen to have progressive views in many issue areas: They love the land — as much as any environmentalist, even though they wouldn't use words like "biodiversity"; many are progressive Christians who take Christianity to be about helping the poor and serving the needy; many are civil-libertarians, though they would never join the "too liberal" ACLU; and most care about their families and empathize with people in dire straights. In short, these are self-identified "conservatives" and "independents" who have very real progressive values in important areas of life.
What is a progressive worldview? It's simple: You have empathy for others, and you act responsibly on that empathy, being both responsible for yourself and socially responsible as well. Progressives say, "We're all in this together" while conservatives say," You're on your own." It was running on those progressive values that won the election for the Democrats.
I encourage you to read, rinse, repeat this article.
Jim Webb was one of those unusual candidates who could not easily be fit into any particular political "box", thus his values, as pronounced and repeated on the campaign trail, could not be easily packaged, either.
As we all know so well, Webb is a deep thinker, was never a sound-bite, retail political candidate, and possesses values that could be described as both "conservative" and "liberal" if considered independently. For this and many other reasons, Webb characterizes himself as a Jacksonian populist.
Therefore, Jim Webb's election, along with that of many other national Democrats this past November 7, could be viewed as a slight movement to the right when one considers the old labels and boxes, which I also dislike.
Webb and other "progressives" (perhaps a newly redefined label?) are designing new boxes, defying old labels and winning elections, and that's the best part.
Therefore, in my opinion, nothing could be healthier for the Democratic Party - nor for our nation at this time in its history - than this new movement.
Is that better?
Thanks!
Steve
Speaking of "treehuggers", a few days ago I saw a funny bumper sticker - it read:
"HUG A LOGGER - YOU'LL NEVER GO BACK TO TREES"
Thanks again, TH!
Steve
wtf? wth?
jim webb did not shift to the right and neither did I... the only thing i disagree with webb on is the whole 'marriage is between man/woman' crap... i'm 100% pro-gay marriage.
my values are the same as jim webb's values and i consider myself a serious lefty...
in my mind, anything to 'the right' in this current America is 'wrong' and moving towards it, even slightly is what got us into trouble in the first place.
In "oldspeak", I think our nation moved slightly to the right.
In "newspeak", it doesn't make a flip.
We won.
Thanks!
Steve
i couldn't agree with your assessment of webb more. it's like since when is being 'for the people' a dirty sentence...
as "they" say: bringing health care for all iraqis is called democracy, bringing it to all americans, is socialism.
If I feed a starving man, i'm a saint...if i ask why is there poverty and starvation in our country, i'm a communist...
it makes no sense.
here's hoping to a great time in the senate for Webb!
However, the defining difference within this family is the ability to come to conclusions - even if it means having to agree to disagree - without disowning one another.
Actually, the few challenges that I received in regard to my original posting on this subject forced me to think about - and explain - it better.
As a result, I'm all the better for it, too.
Thanks!
Steve
"there is no left or right, just up or down"
Something to think about?
Not trying to pick on anybody here, but I have a question.
Why are we so hung up on labels, catch words, sound bites? Why is it always necessary to define and analyize things and ideas and people? Perhaps those who spend their lives doing this are simply justifying their existence, I don't know. I personally think that many Americans have just had enough. As have I.
In my lifetime I have been labeled and called many things and they ALL have been SOMEONE ELSE'S interpretation of my thoughts, ideas, behaviors and beliefs. And not all of them have been (or are) nice. I do not think that at any time in my life has someone else's label determined the right or the wrong of anything for me and I intend to keep it that way. After all these years I have discovered this, labels limit. It is the nature of the beast and it is what they are designed to do.
I voted for Webb because I believe he will stand up and do what he thinks is right. That he won't twist and turn and be corrupted by the status quo.
I don't think I need to slap a label on him (or on myself) for that to happen.