I don't think there's a lot I can add to the dissection of the last election. A lot of things happened, some good, most bad, and it's time to get on with the next election. This is intended to outline a strategy for retaking the House in 2006, and I'd like to get some feedback on it.
My proposal is that "we":
1. spend the next 4-8 months crafting a brief Agenda for House candidates for 2006.
2. find and support House candidates who will support this Agenda
3. find and support institutions and organizations that will support this Agenda and these candidates
4. force the debate in 2005 to be about this Agenda
Of course, this is what political parties are supposed to do, but ours hasn't done it, has it? Plus, what I'm really talking about is crafting a message, not a platform - a way of presenting traditional progressive issues in a new and appealing light. This clarification may be clear in the draft I've included below.
A Modest Proposal for 2006
I don't think there's a lot I can add to the dissection of the last election. A lot of things happened, some good, most bad, and it's time to get on with the next election. This is intended to outline a strategy for retaking the House in 2006, and I'd like to get some feedback on it.
This strategy makes several key assumptions:
1. The best tactic for effecting dramatic change is to nationalize the midterms. By "nationalizing" I mean having one or more key issues that dominate the public debate nationally, as opposed to 435 local elections that are about 435 different issues. Local issues may be important in specific cases, but by having a few issues that we can promote uniformly across the country, we can better leverage our dollars and our activism.
2. The best way to win on key issues is to frame them ourselves. The last midterms were framed by the repugs to be about terrorism, with incumbents cast as being weak on it. I expect they will try to frame the next midterms as well, and we should get there first.
3. The best way to frame the issues that we want to dominate the midterms is to produce a set of key policies that would be acted upon by the new House. This is what Gingrich et al did in 1994 with their `Contract for America [sic]', though it did serve as much of a frame in the end. Still, I imagine this set of key policies - be they five, seven, or ten - to have some catchy name and, more importantly, to be adopted by Congressional candidates who desire the support of the progressive community.
4. The best way to produce this set of key policies - lets call it the Agenda - is through open debate within the progressive community. And really, to be quite clear, I don't mean that it's the policies themselves that will win the election, but how they are framed.
Therefore, my proposal is that "we":
1. spend the next 4-8 months crafting a brief Agenda for House candidates for 2006.
2. find and support House candidates who will support this Agenda
3. find and support institutions and organizations that will support this Agenda and these candidates
4. force the debate in 2005 to be about this Agenda
Of course, this is what political parties are supposed to do, but ours hasn't done it, has it? Plus, what I'm really talking about is crafting a message, not a platform - a way of presenting traditional progressive issues in a new and appealing light. This clarification may be clear in the draft I've included below. But first, some possible problems:
An agenda developed now may be irrelevant in a year and a half. Well, anything we do to plan for the midterms may be irrelevant. If Osama knocks down the Golden Gate bridge in September 2006, there's nothing we can do. But we can do this.
Congressional candidates may ignore the whole effort. Well, if we're behind it, and they want us behind them, they can't. Besides, my own Congressman is the worst sort of wingnut so if nothing else I'll just run on this myself.
We may spend six months bickering about an agenda with no discernible result. That's the glory of democracy, and the curse of rational politics.
A particular problem is that someone has to "own" the agenda. I propose that a website devoted to the purpose, using tools similar to Scoop, could produce something of a consensus Agenda, assuming we started with trusted moderators and a modicum of good will.
Finally, a draft Agenda, which I hope will convey what I have in mind about this Agenda being an articulation of progressive goals in the language of values. Some of these are original, some are versions of things I've seen on dKos and elsewhere, some are original but I may not take credit for them if pressed.
PROJECT 2006 - BUILDING A BETTER AMERICA
1. Abortion Reduction Act To reduce abortions across America, we commit to
a. extend Medicare coverage to all health services for ALL pregnant women, from conception to end of pregnancy (by whatever means, including termination)
b. extend free contraceptive coverage to all Americans
c. require paternal support of all children of a minimum of $/month, upon DNA proof of paternity, up to age of 18yrs.
d. ???
comment: who can oppose reducing the number of legal abortions?
Meme: Reduce abortions by reducing the reasons women have abortions.
2. Ethical Employment Act To ensure that all working Americans earn an honorable wage for honorable work, we commit to
a. raise the minimum wage to $9/hr
b. allow working Americans to form communities without restriction for the negotation of terms (I'm trying to get at unionizing here, but without the loaded language)
c. ???
comment: the idea is to turn anti-corporatism into pro-workerism. recall that an increase in minimum wage carried easily among voters of both parties in Florida even as they were supporting Bush and Martinez
Meme: honorable wage for honorable work
3. Community Health Act To ensure that all Americans have access to health care, we propose to:
a. allow all individuals to buy into the Congressional health plan at the same rate as members of Congress
b. allow all individuals over 55 to buy into Medicare
c. require community rating of health policies (that is, any two adults buying the same policy get charged the same rate, regardless of age or prior health history [exceptions for smokers, etc]).
comment: health care is a pivotal issue for progressives, but we've had a hard time selling reform as anything that escapes the label of "another big government program". the first two points are from the Kerry plan.
Meme: Health insurance should be a commodity, not a luxury.
4. Constitution Protection Amendment An amendment to the Constitution which states that freedom of speech (expression) should not be construed as protecting the right to destroy or deface copies of the US Constitution.
comment: I've always thought the flag-burning thing was a non-issue, frankly, other than pointing up the number of flag-fetishers. But forget the flag, let's turn the Constitution into the new Sacred Text. Isn't that how progressives feel about it? (okay, maybe this is over the top, but -I'm looking for something to completely reverse the image of progressives as unpatriotic).
Meme: It's not just a symbol - it's our future!
5. Federal Marriage Act II Whereby
a. The Federal government gets out of the marriage business.
b. The Federal government recognizes whatever each state defines as a civil contract between two adults.
c. states may define marriage or civil contract however they like.
comment: let's face it - gay marriage is going to kill us if we can't change the terms of the debate.
Meme: Get the federal government out of our private lives, out of our churches.
6. Fiscal Responsibility Balance the budget.
7. War and Peace
a. $0.05/gallon tax to finance war on terror
b. Commit US to being the one of the top five donors of foreign aid, per capita % of GDP, by 2010 (currently we're about #25, below South Korea and Portugal).
c. ???
8. Environmental stewardship
a. No ANWR drilling.
b. CO is a "pollutant" (note, Bush said he'd do this in 2000 campaign, then promptly broke the promise). Shades of Kyoto.
c. ???
9. Community Service
a. Americorps.
b. ???
Some of these are weak to non-existent, but I'm counting on George Lakoff fans et al to help with language and details. What I think is crucial here is to avoid regulations and taxes; directly address hot-button issues in the language of values; give candidates something they can easily embrace and explain.
Again, I think if we can zero in on a small number of specific issues, and cast them in the right language, and identify candidates who support them, and get behind them - then we will have the best chance of an upset in 2006.
What do you all think? Depending on the responses I get, I will consider setting up a dedicated website for the project.