Commonwealth Commonsense

Boehner’s Calculated ‘So Be It’

The Washington Post buried the story about Speaker Boehner’s remarks on the possible loss of federal jobs resulting from reduced spending. The story is inside the Metro section, probably because he was talking about government jobs, of which many are local. It’s a stretch but that’s the only reason I can see for its placement.

But Dana Milbank writes about the comment on the op-ed page and in it states a truth that should be part of this debate but this is the only time I’ve seen it stated.

Let's assume that Boehner is not as heartless as his words sound. Let's accept that he really believes, as he put it, that "if we reduce spending we'll create a better environment for job creation in America." A more balanced budget would indeed improve the jobs market - in the long run.

But in the short run, the cuts Boehner and his caucus propose would cause a shock to the economy that would slow, if not reverse, the recovery. And however pure Boehner's motives may be, the dirty truth is that a stall in the recovery would bring political benefits to the Republicans in the 2012 elections. It is in their political interests for unemployment to remain higher for the next two years. "So be it" is callous but rational.

The strategy is canny. First focus on discretionary spending where you can cut ideologically. Republicans are hoping to kill programs they don’t like before they tackle the real problem, entitlements. I’m sure their strategy then will be to cut entitlements for the poor and middle class while preserving them for the truly entitled.

A proven communications strategy is to accuse your opponent of something you think they will hit you with, so when they do, it seems calculated by your opponent and becomes easy to fight back against. Obama and Democrats ought now to start charging the GOP with killing jobs by cutting spending, so when it happens, you can say, “I told you so.” Because killing jobs is just what the GOP wants.

“The American People Want…”

How many times since the November election—and really before that—have you heard a Republican say that “the American people want” everything from smaller government, less spending, lower taxes, a reduced deficit?  They say it at press conference, at congressional hearings, on the cable talk shows, and the phrase makes it into plenty of print stories.

It reinforces that Republican reputation for message discipline. They all say it. Members of the House and Senate, governors, state legislators, think tankers. They are better trained than monkeys. And if you say it often enough, American start to believe it.

Well, Democrats, at the very least learn from the best. Start saying it, but with a different ending. The fact is Americans don’t necessarily want smaller government, less spending, etc. Yes, they want smaller deficits, but you can get at that, of course, in two ways—cut spending or raise taxes.

And the fact is, Americans don’t want to cut much spending when you get down to specifics, as the Pew Research Center poll of last week revealed, not that it was much of a secret. Americans are always wanting a free lunch. (More on the Pew survey in a future post.)

But the phrase is effective because it positions the speaker as a servant of the public.

I can understand why, given the contradictory polling on this issue, some journalists don’t challenge a GOPer for saying that “the American people want.” After all, most of them are simply stenographers.

But last night,I heard a newly elected GOP senator repeat the line several times—on The Last Word on MSNBC. Why wasn’t Lawrence O’Donnell challenging him on his contention that 70 percent of American want to cut spending? It would have been easy to counter what he said by using the Pew data that shows not a single category of spending garners a majority of Americans saying they want to cut it.

So MSNBC, do your job. And Dems, do your job and repeat after me (again using the Pew survey as your source):

The American people don’t want us to cut spending on education, veterans benefits, healthcare, Medicare, crime fighting, energy and a lot more programs. They want us to keep spending the same or more in an overwhelming number of areas. It’s only the Republicans who want us to go backward with inferior schools, clog roads and expensive energy. The American people want a strong, vital America to pass down to their children. That’s what the American people want.

Finally, Obama Adopts Family Responsibility Theme

I’ve argued to anyone who’ll listen that the meme Republicans have used about government having to tighten its belt “just like families do” was not only flawed, but ripe for adopting as a Democratic theme. Now, President Obama did it with his Saturday radio address.

When faced with financial challenges, families do several things. Yes, they cut back spending.  But they also look to increase income. They know not everything can or should be cut across the board. Some things you can do without; others are necessary to succeed in the long run. So, like the family alluded to in Obama’s speech where the mother is looking for a second job because they want their child to finish college, families do what’s necessary to pay for the things they think are important. The president uses this narrative to turn the tables on the disingenuous GOP narrative and argues the federal government shouldn’t cut everything. Some investments must be made because if we don’t, we’ll put our kids at a disadvantage to compete in the future. They won’t have the education or the infrastructure to compete. They’ll be more dependent on foreign oil than ever before with an antiquated transportation system that will choke economic growth. All because we want to cut taxes and slice not only muscle but bone from the our governments.

Text of speech is here. Video below.

Strong Statement and Weak Words

No more stark contrast in messaging styles can we have than these few paragraphs from The Washington Post’s online report today about the employment statistics. The stats, which come from two different sources, paint a contradictory and completely opposite picture of what experts expected. Most thought we’d actually see a bump up in the unemployment rate as more workers, encouraged by improving economic signs, re-enter the job market, while the number of jobs created would increase by nearly 150,000.

Instead, the unemployment rate dropped but few jobs were created, although “the number of people who described themselves as employed rose by 589,000.” The Post’s Neil Irwin does a good job of explaining why this surprise may have occurred.

But, this being Washington, he needs a quote from both sides on the significance of these numbers.

The White House called the the decline in the jobless rate a "welcome development" but generally refrained from celebrating the numbers, given the uneven picture they paint.

"The overall trajectory of the economy has improved dramatically over the past two years, but there will surely be bumps in the road ahead," White House Council of Economic Advisers Chairman Austan Goolsbee said in a statement. "The monthly employment and unemployment numbers are volatile, and . . . estimates are subject to substantial revision. . . . It is important not to read too much into any one monthly report."

House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), however, said the weak job creation shows that the Obama administration's push to speed the economic recovery isn't working.

"The spending binge is hurting job creation," Boehner said in a statement, "eroding confidence, draining funds away from private investment and spreading uncertainty among job creators."  [emphasis added]

Note the White House, inhabited by Democrats who clearly don’t understand the 24-hour news cycle, hedge their bets, afraid that they will have egg on their faces if the trend isn’t a straight line.  As if anyone will remember.

Boehner, however, isn’t worried about what will happen next month and ignores the good news in the reports. You know he already had his talking points before the report came out. “Spending binge hurting job creation,” even though there is no economic connection between the two. In fact, most economists, both conservatives and progressives, will say government spending is critical to creating jobs in a soft economy. But we’ve left that conventional wisdom in the dust. And we can’t expect journalists to point out the contradiction. That’s not their job. “Truth is relative. We’ve only got our steno pads.” 

“Eroding confidence, draining away funds…spreading uncertainty.” All are strong images, even though it is unclear how the government spending less will cause “private investment” to increase.

Meanwhile, the Dems focus on “bumps in the road ahead,” volatile numbers “subject to substantial revision.”

No wonder we lose the message wars.

Strong Support for Healthcare Reform

My headline is not one you’re likely to see in mainstream media headlines.  Not because it’s false; actually, it’s true. But the mainstream media wants a couple of things:

1. Continued access to Republican sources; ergo,
2. MSM will continue to report GOP talking points, even when they know they are not true.

A recent poll by The Washington Post and its reporting makes the case. Here’s the headline: More Americans oppose health-care law, but few want a total repeal.

More than what, you ask?  More than ever? More than the last poll? More than support it?

Actually, the simple answer is the third option. Simple, but incorrect, as interpreted by most people. And no where in the article does it explain what the headline means.

Republicans are forever saying that “the American people don’t support this healthcare bill,” or words to that effect.  They then say that’s why they want to repeal it.

As The Post reports, few really want repeal, but you will forever see the GOP make that false claim, false but duly noted by the press.

But to the question of support for the healthcare bill, The Post’s Jon Cohen buries the lede in the penultimate paragraph.

Another factor in the debate is that a quarter of those who oppose the health-care law say the legislation is faulty because it did not go far enough, not because it pushed change too far.

So if you add the number together from The Post’s poll, 45% support the bill, and about 13% of those who opposed it wish it went further, meaning 58%, a sizable majority (a landslide in electoral politics), either like the current healthcare overhaul or wish it would go further, and in all likelihood that means arguably not in the direction the GOP would take it.

Yesterday’s poll by The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press confirms this interpretation.

The public continues to be divided over what it wants to see done with the health care law – 37% favor its repeal, while nearly as many (35%) want the law expanded, and 20% would leave it as it is.

Which again gives us 55% of Americans wanting the law as is or expanded.

Complicating my view are the results from two other polls this week.  A CNN poll doesn’t ask the question about whether opposition is because the law doesn’t go far enough, and its topline support/oppose is the same as the other polls, a slight plurality opposed.  But when forced to choose to either keep it all or repeal it all, 50% say repeal it all with 42% say keep it all.  One would think that if a majority liked the law or wanted it to go further, the “don’t repeal” group would be closer to 55%, not 42%.

But I think another question, asked in this week’s  CBS/New York Times poll, puts the entire debate into perspective. When asked if any of the provisions that have already taken effect (keep children on policy until age 26 or that children can not be rejected for insurance if they have a preexisting condition), apply to the respondent, we learn only 13% have benefited from the law yet. Once people start seeing the benefits to themselves, support could grow.

Another key issue is this from the CNN/NY Times poll:

Those who support repeal were asked whether they would continue to do so if it meant that insurance companies were no longer required to cover people with pre-existing medical conditions; 52% said they would, but 35% said in that case, the law should not be repealed.

Someone (the Press? the Dems? Both?) have not done a good job of explaining the bill.

A critical question is this” Should it be the media’s responsibility to explain the bill. That depends on what one think the media’s role should be. If it is to simply report what is happening or whether it is to find the truth. I believe it is the latter and cite the Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists, an organization to which, admittedly, not all journalists belong.

Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues.

…Journalists should:

— Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible. [emphasis added]

Yet, throughout this debate one issue that confounds people in my business (communications consulting). Again, from the CBS?NY Times poll:

And finally, there may be some lingering confusion about the provisions of the bill. 56% of Americans say the bill’s impact on themselves and their families has not been explained well to them.

Given what’s at stake, which is not only the relentless false impressions of the bill duly stenographed by the media, maybe the best option is an advertising campaign. What would it cost to widely distribute this 30-sec. ad in an attempt to bypass the media:

The new federal health law means:

1. Insurance companies can’t drop coverage when you get sick, and they can’t cap your coverage.
2. They cannot deny you or your children coverage because of pre-existing conditions.
3. You won’t lose your insurance when you change jobs.
4. Reduced costs for drugs for seniors.
5. Tax credits for small businesses offering health insurance
6. A reduced federal deficit.

The new federal health law—do you want all these provisions repealed?

On TV, these bullet points should be on the screen as the narrator reads them to ensure that people who can’t hear the ad but see the TV can read them.

Will this ad overcome the misleading information disseminated by the MSM and the false information by Fox News and conservative talk radio. I’m not sure, but clearly proponents of healthcare reform are losing the messaging war.  This can’t hurt.

Note: An edited version of this post appears on News Commonsense, my media blog.

Are Nuts and Bolts the Only Things Needed to Build a Coalition?

E.J. Dionne makes the argument that Republicans are too abstract.

Their rhetoric is nearly devoid of talk about solving practical problems - how to improve our health care, education and transportation systems, or how to create more middle-class jobs.

Instead, we hear about things we can't touch or see or feel, and about highly general principles divorced from their impact on everyday life.

Their passion is not for what government should or shouldn't do but for "smaller government" as a moral imperative. During the campaign, they put out a nice round $100 billion in spending cuts from which they're now backing away. It is far easier to float a big number than to describe reductions for student loans, bridges, national parks or medical research.

The problem is that Democrats too often ignore principles and instead get wonkish. Such an approach assumes voters make rational decisions based on specific policies. They don’t. Why else would lower middle class people, especially men, vote for the party that is set on destroying it? Instead those hurt most by Republican economic policies vote for GOPers because they like their principles.

Of course, they may like Democratic principles, too, but Democrats spend little time articulating them and instead let the Republicans define those principles for them. The same is true for overall messages. During the time I worked with Virginia politicians, I found far too many unconcerned with delivering overarching messages and much more concerned with budgets for direct mail.

Dionne also errs when he suggests that “men aren't angels, but the professors in Congress seem to believe that another great abstraction, ‘the free market,’ can obviate the need for messy and complicated statutes.” The Democrats problem is that they have constantly offered “messy and complicated statues” that are seen by voters as examples of Congressional mischief and malfeasance. Laws, as Philip Howard has argued, are far too complicated. They should be more concise and set out principles and overarching goals and leave the details to those carrying them out. That, of course, are the hate “government bureaucrats.,” who are left to follow arcane and specific rules embodied in laws and necessarily eschew commonsense.

Dionne, however, has one thing right, as he continues his assault on the media.

If journalism in a democracy is about anything, it is about bringing the expansive rhetoric of politicians down to earth and holding them accountable for how their ideas translate into policies that affect actual human beings.

It may be easier to report windy speeches about "liberty" and "entrepreneurship" than to do the grubby work of examining budgets, regulations, programs and economic consequences. But journalists surely want to be more than stenographers.

One wonders if they really do.

Obama Tax Hikes?

Here’s a pretty good example, even if it doesn’t seem to be working as yet, of how the right tries to drive the framing of issues. The Dingbat of the the North tweets:

Pls refer to Jan.1 tax changes appropriately: they're OBAMA TAX HIKES & they'll slam every American's savings, investments & job opportunity

Politifact debunks this, of course.

Palin and other Republicans often suggest that Obama and the Democrats want to see tax rates go up for all incomes. But that's not what they've been advocating for more than two years. President Barack Obama campaigned on maintaining the tax cuts for couples earning less than $250,000 while allowing the expiration of the tax cuts for families above that line. In fact, in a Dec. 2, 2010, vote, the vast majority of House Democrats supported a bill to do precisely that, with almost all Republicans voting against the bill. (House Speaker-to-be John Boehner, R-Ohio, went so far as to call the bill "chicken crap.")

But Politifact misses the point. Blame should have been assessed relentlessly by Democrats over the last year on Republicans. The argument goes something like this:

Republicans had a chance to make the tax cuts permanent when they made them.  But they couldn’t get it passed because Democrats were filibustering the cuts. So they used budget reconciliation and made them just 10 years to avoid the “Byrd rule” forbidding using reconciliation if it impacts the budget beyond 10 years. In other words, the GOP used the same tactic they accused Democrats of using to pass the health care bill. So not only are they hypocrites, they were financially reckless and pushed the budget reckoning down the road. But then, following the elephant to clean up the mess is well-known and thankless job.

Terrorist Faces 20 to Life: Trial a Failure

The verdict in the trial of Ahmed Ghailani means his role in the 1998 embassy bombings in Africa earns him 20 years to life imprisonment. But the GOP and some Democrats have won the message war: This is a failure of the Obama administration’s plans to try some terrorists in civilian court because it was the only charge of more than 200 for which he was found guilty.

What it is, really, is another example of the failure of the administration’s ability to get in front of an issue and frame it correctly. In fact, administration officials were silent.

Neither President Obama nor Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. commented publicly on the verdict, which other officials said they interpreted as a sign of quiet defeat [emphasis added]. The political climate for civilian trials will grow only worse in January once Republicans - who are widely opposed to using federal courts to prosecute Guantanamo detainees - take over the House, officials said.

Apparently, though, the administration feels the fault lies with the GOP.

Senior administration officials expressed frustration with the Republican response to the Ghailani case, saying the verdict changed nothing about the legal viability of civilian courts to handle terrorist cases. "Ghailani is an unfortunate addition to a long-running saga of politicization and outright distortion of this issue," one official said.

So sorry they feel frustrated. Would someone mind telling them that when they offer no position or framing of their own, reporters are left with the impression that there is no defense, let alone an offsetting offense.

How many folks know that not only did George Bush try terrorists in civilian courts, including the infamous “shoe bomber,” but that civilian trails have been successful during the Obama years?

Denis McDonough, the deputy national security adviser, said the White House remains committed to using all available venues for trying terrorism suspects. And in the past year, with little controversy, the administration has tried numerous terrorism suspects, including individuals who planned attacks on Times Square and the New York subway system.

If you don’t communicate your own successes, don’t cry because the GOP won’t.

Some folks tried, of course, but listen to the stilted, bloodless defense.

Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), the chairman of the homeland security subcommittee on intelligence, noted that Ghailani is facing a sentence stiffer than all but one meted out by military commissions.

"More than 200 years of American jurisprudence and a clear track record of success should not be thrown out the window or falsely characterized for political advantage," Harman said. "The Obama administration needs to push back."

Blah, blah, blah, jurisprudence, blah, blah, blah.  Push back?  We’re waiting.  How about this reframe?

“Why does the GOP so mistrust Americans?  Our country is founded on the idea of jury trials, but the GOP doesn’t trust Americans to uphold that tradition.  Do they think average Americans are too stupid to be on a jury?  Do they think that average Americans want to coddle terrorists? Or do they want to do away with jury trials altogether?

“This is another brazen, deceitful attempt by Republicans to instill fear and divide Americans.  They want to play politics with our security.”

Ahmed Ghailani will get 20 years to life.  I think American jurors did their job, and I’m proud of them.  Why aren’t Republicans?

In a related note, The Post’s writers adopted an awkward GOP frame for the issue of torture.  Note this paragraph:

"This was a difficult case in that there were questions about Ghailani's treatment during the previous administration" - such as the use of enhanced interrogation techniques - "that led to a key witness being excluded," {Justice Department, spokesman Matthew Miller] said.

Note the phrase between the em dashes.  That’s the Bush term for torture.  Did the reporters substitute that frame for torture, the word Miller said, or did they add the phrase to describe the “treatment” Miller alludes to?  In either case, the word is “torture,” not “enhanced interrogation techniques,” which is, among other things, vague and a phrase that was not in the language before the Bushies created it.

Kathleen Reardon is right. Obama is no great communicator. 

[L]ong diatribes with no passion, assertiveness and spontaneity in the face of GOP hostility are going to make this presidency a short, disappointing one.

Is the Democrats’ Problem the “Messaging”?

Yes, was the conclusion of Mo Elleithee and Mike Gehrke of Benenson Strategy Group at this morning’s Northern Virginia Democratic Business Council breakfast. Democrats did a poor job of communicating how their programs and policies would help voters, they said. Many on the left have made that argument, too.

While that is true, this communication problem should wait until other, more fundamental problems are addressed. We can do them simultaneously, but we can’t lose sight of those issues that would make our communications more effective.

First is the long-haul challenge, which is to address one valid criticism: Government is broken, or at least needs a major tune-up. It’s not just Congress or politics. Government doesn’t work as people think it should. Many on the left like to point to government programs that people like: Social Security, Medicare, etc. as proof that if they just understood us better, they’d love government. But beyond specific programs, people believe that government operations are inefficient, wasteful and intrusive. So as long as you’re not proposing cuts in their programs, they are willing to buy into that notion that “government is the problem.” And they are right.

The problem is that government is paralyzed by process. For why and how I recommend “The Death of Commonsense: How the Law is Suffocating America.” Laws are written to be overly complex, and they constrain government from doing a commonsense job of implementing them. We all know the stories: Social service workers routinely approve benefits that people don’t deserve, for example. Voters, especially independents, are receptive to anti-tax rhetoric because they don’t believe they get value for their tax dollars. Conservatives see the problem as fraud. That may be true, but the solution isn’t to downsize government. The solution is to empower government to take responsibility and stop abuses, without risking charges that they violated a complicated process outlined by a 1,000-page law. The benefit may be that if you empower officials to take action, make decisions about what is important and risk implementing imperfect but quick, effective solutions, selling the benefits of government is easier. The book’s thesis and argument aren’t perfect, but they’re valid.

Progressives may see this an attack on government, and bureaucrats may take it personally, but the issue isn’t them but process, one gone astray and easily attacked. Democrats must be at the forefront of government reform. We must streamline processes, even if it means re-writing some laws. Many special interests will howl.

Give bureaucrats the responsibility to carry laws out. Hold them accountable, which also means revising personnel practices so you can get rid of dead wood and incompetents. Expect pushback from government unions. The party should welcome it but sell them on the idea of greater empowerment.

A valid concern with this argument is that if you empower bureaucrats, they may implement laws in ways Congress didn’t intend. Another is that with each change in administrations, new political appointees leading bureaucracies could reverse a general direction of implementing laws. I think these issues can—and must—be overcome if we are to be a force for the proper use of government.

Second, we need to have some perspective on overall spending and address the sustainability of Medicare and Social Security programs and get behind minor reforms that will address these problems. I say “minor” because raising the retirement age to 69 for people who are now decades away from retirement, while problematic for manual laborers, is not an evisceration of the program. We should be willing to raise the salary limits on payroll taxes and means-test both programs. But if those levels are reasonably high, they can have a significant impact on the programs’ viability. But no sooner did the deficit commission leaders announce their recommendations this week, I got an email from the Progressive Change Campaign Committee with their panties in a knot over the “attacks on Social Security.” We’re talking about raising the retirement age from 67 to 69—for people who now are no older than 16. Letting them know now might be an incentive for them to aim for a desk job than one digging holes until you’re 69. The commission leaders plan also calls for increases in benefits for low-income widows and reinstates college benefits for child survivors. I think progressives will think these are good things. The elimination of the mortgage interest deductions might include only mortgages more than $500,000, though I would support complete elimination of them. Why should renters subsidize home owners? Renters can’t deduct any of their rent on their income tax return.

Bottom line is that progressives must stop knee jerk reactions to any talk of spending cuts. Some of them may be justified, and you’d wind up with more effective government, more money for truly helpful government programs, and, oh yes, more voters on your side. Reforming entitlement programs isn’t capitulation or even compromise. It’s smart politics and good for the country.

Where I think Elleithee and Gehrke were off base this morning was in their focus on better communication of Democratic programs and policies. Before we establish a communication plan or messages for our programs and policies, we must be willing to establish our overarching principles. If this election (and the 2004 election of George W. Bush) taught us anything, it is that people will vote for politicians who stand up for their principles, even if they offer no programs and policies.

Do you know what Democratic principles are? Do you think most Democrats would agree on them? Do you think they are simple enough that people can understand them? We live in an new era when it comes to communications. It may be that our brains are actually changing (See Shallows by Nicholas Carr.) We hope that people understand the policy choices, but we’re fools if we count on it. I’ll take a vote from someone who only understands my principles just as fast as I’ll take the policy wonk’s. Counts the same, and there’s more of them.

Democrats are sometimes arrogant about their message. They say, “We have principles but they are not easy to convey in pithy sound bites. That’s because the country’s problems are more complex than Republicans make them out to be?” That is a cop-out. (See “The Political Brain” by Drew Westen.) More important, having articulated clear principles makes it easy to articulate your policies.

Voting is an emotional exercise, not an intellectual one. You must connect emotionally, and that’s where principles come in. They frame your arguments. They tell the voter where your heart is.

Once articulating principles, we must be willing to campaign on them, not policies and programs. The latter are too difficult to explain in 30 seconds. You certainly can expand on your principles and explain policies in debates and longer form interviews. But even then, we need to make sure people understand our principles.

Instead of complaining about the way the GOP frames the message, learn from them and go them one better. How can we expect voters to think we will fight for them when we won’t even fight for our own principles? That also means fighting back against the media narrative. When mainstream reporters adopt the GOP frame, we need to call out reporters and be willing to incur their wrath. Republicans have been doing this for 30 years, and they’ve won the battle because we didn’t fight back. As an example, take a look at last night’s interview of a conservative on the Parker Spitzer CNN show. He was relentless in accusing Kathleen Parker of a being an Obama supporter and falsely accuses her of actually endorsing him. Lesson: Push back—hard.

While I don’t believe that the only reason the Dems got shellacked in this election is because of poor messaging, it was a big reason.

The first step is to list in short phrases Democratic principles. We can do this for GOPers: limited government, lower taxes, traditional family values, traditional marriage, etc. I’ll suggest a Democratic straw man for you:

Middle class opportunity

Free & fair enterprise

Civic values

Fair taxes

Promote the general welfare

“For the people” government

College for all who’ve earned it

Strong, smart foreign policy

Energy independence

There could be more and there might be better ways of articulating them. Under each, we can outline not programs but goals and more detail on our principles. For example, under middle class opportunity, we talk about how we support opportunity for all Americans to achieve a secure middle class standard of living and the chance to become rich and financially secure. We do that by writing laws that offer everyone equal opportunity, instead of the rules, regulations and laws that give preferential treatment to the rich and politically connected. We must have a level playing field and repeat incessantly how the middle class has stagnated and that the overwhelming portion of income growth over the past 30 years has gone to the top 1% while the middle class has fallen behind.

Under American moral values, we should discuss what Christianity (or Judaism, Islam, etc.) teaches us: that we are our brother’s keepers. The Constitution paid homage to that ideal with the phrase “promote the general welfare.” We must reclaim the Constitution and our religions from those who would subvert their meaning.

Third, we must demand cohesion among Congressional Democrats on key issues. If they refuse, we should ostracize them from the party. You can vote against key legislation that your party thinks is critical, but expect to find yourself without a committee assignment and without any way of getting your bills considered. In this past Congress we were held hostage by Democrats who lost. What good did it do us?

For progressives, if all else fails, form a third party. If Ross Perot could do it before the web, we can certainly do it now. I guarantee you that it will focus the minds and stiffen the backs of Dems everywhere.

GOP Offers Advice It Wouldn’t Take

E.J. Dionne nails it.

In 2008, the largest number of voters in American history gave the Democrats their largest share of the presidential vote in 44 years and big majorities in the House and Senate.

How did Republicans react? They held their ideological ground, refused to give an inch to the new president and insisted that persistent opposition would eventually yield them victory. On Nov. 2, it did.

Yet now that Democrats have suffered a setback - in an election, it should be said, involving many fewer voters than the big battle two years ago - they are being counseled to do the opposite of what the Republicans did, especially by Republicans.

Democrats who stand up to say they were right to reform health care and stimulate a staggering economy are told they "don't get it" and are "in denial." Liberals who refuse to let one election loss alter their commitments are dismissed as "doubling down" on a bad bet.

President Obama made the word "audacity" popular, but conservative Republicans practice it.

Mainstream commentary typically bends to the more audacious side. As a result, there was far less middle-of-the-road advice in 2008 urging Republicans to move to the center than there were warnings to Obama not to read too much into his victory. The United States, we were told, was still a "center-right" country. The actual election result didn't seem to matter back then.

Funny that when progressives win, they are told to moderate their hopes, but when conservatives win, progressives are told to retreat.

Worse, Democrats tend to internalize the views of their opponents.

This is right in so many ways.  And it’s largely because progressives haven’t fought back against the mainstream media that tends to reward GOP puck by framing issues in the GOP parlance.

But there are other reason.  The principle difference between Republican and Democratic leaders is that Republicans have principles, can articulate them and defend them.  If Democrats have principles, they can’t identify them, and they certainly can’t put them in pithy phrases that pierce the media clutter.  And if they could, I’m not sure they would fight for them.