Democratic Illustrator

GOP Endorsements

2011-12-07T04:38:00.000-08:00

ILLUSTRATED: Congressional Republicans are in a pickle

While I don't have the polling research to back this up, my intuition tells me that a disproportionately large amount of Romney's support comes from Republicans in blue places. Therefore, most GOP Republicans have a base that is very anti-Romney. Yet, most must feel that he is the only realistic GOP president right now.

What Obama's 2012 message ought to be

2011-11-20T07:41:00.000-08:00

ILLUSTRATED: Use Obama's life story to focus on CHOICE and ACCESS
Mitt Romney and I came from different backgrounds, but we both had a shot at Harvard Law School. Upon graduation, Mitt went into business consulting and private equity, which is fine. I went into community organizing and civil rights law. The point is, upon graduation, we could make an economic choice. Everybody, needs capitalists, and everybody, including Mitt Romney, needs community builders. We have the resources in America to give young people of few means, a shot at a great education, and the choice to pursue their dreams. That means better schools, and less debt burden. I worked to solve both in my first four years....

The Kitchen Table analogy for the Debt Ceiling

2011-04-11T03:07:00.000-07:00

You are at the kitchen table reading through your bills. Your credit card bills and utility bills are due tomorrow. Your banker will give you a loan today. What do you do?
Of course you will take the loan. It is the least bad option for your credit situation.
-Even if the vote comes close to the deadline, tens of billions will be lost hedging bets.
-The long term deficits for the future will go up, since interest rates on Treasury notes will go up.
-People's savings will be hurt.

This (should be) a slam dunk case for the Democrats to make. When Wall Street and Main Street have aligned interests, I think that's a political winner.

Memo to Democrats

2010-11-03T06:04:00.001-07:00

ILLUSTRATED: The path onward and upward.

TO: National Democrats
RE: The way forward

The storm has passed. Last night was our worst night, and it was and will be their best night for some time.

1. The biggest political fight in the next 18 months will be within the GOP. Thus any generic polling before the spring of 2012 is worthless.

2. The Great Lakes region is where Obama and Biden need to spend their time doing town halls explaining the benefits of their programs. We also need to recruit solid House candidates. That is the key region we need to swing back.

3. The West Coast and Northeast held. This was not a wipe out.

4. California passed some very far reaching political reforms and kept its energy policy. Recruit good candidates there to capitalize politically on the rebirth there.

And the Democrats' Message for the fall of 2010 is....

2010-09-16T04:21:00.000-07:00

ILLUSTRATED: The global economy is treacherous, and the Democrats are working to protect families and support small businesses.

The economy is the central issue, and it goes to the central truth about the economy. There is a huge global arbitrage with the factors of economic produciton (labor, property/platforms, capital). This means that these factors of productions are so transient and virtual that their prices are evening out around the globe. It is causing people to lose their jobs, and thus their homes and credit. People need health care, extended unemployment benefits, and technical education.

There is also a market failure with Wall Street overlooking small businesses (which create most new jobs).

Lastly, this narrative puts the Democrats' accomplishments into context.

The O'Donnell win isn't that surprising when you think about it

2010-09-16T04:01:00.000-07:00

ILLUSTRATED: American communities are becoming unhinged. Voters usually vote for the candidate who personifies the zeitgeist of that election year. Hence, 2010 is a politically tumultuous year.

It's a simple truth about elections: candidates win who personify public opinion at the time of their election. This morning it was announced that August, 2010 had a record number of home foreclosures, with more in the pipeline. As families lose their homes, consumers lose their credit, workers lose their employability, and neighborhoods lose their old demographic character, strange things will continue to happen at the ballot box.

Economically solvent households are the building blocks of communities. As this foundation is crumbling, the political landscape becomes fertile for candidates who channel voters' frustrations and fear of the future.

The political class is "shocked" by the "upset" win of archconservative Christine O'Donnell in the Delaware Republican Senate Primary. She defeated a long term, popular moderate Republican who was expected to cruise to victory in November. A struggling woman who speaks in ideologically clear statements, she is resonating with voters right now. Even though her worldview and policies do not normally vibe with Delaware.

These are not normal times. Democrats need a message that addresses this.

Jobs

2010-07-03T12:41:00.000-07:00

ILLUSTRATED: The Democrats need to incentivize job retention within our borders, as well as raising our workforce to meet those jobs.

Andy Grove, the Hungarian-born boss of Intel, has written an excellent article about the importance of keeping manufacturing jobs in the tech sector. He attacks the popular thesis that growth comes from a few geniuses in Palo Alto cafes. Who then get the money to start a company, and then export the manufacturing jobs to Asia. Grove says that innovation does not only come from a handful of Stanford grads. Innovation and business intelligence comes from the workers, suppliers, and distributors in throughout the tech "ecosystem." If the ecosystem is domestic, then the institutional knowledge and relationships upon which business depends will be here in the U.S.A.

Additionally, the same day that frustrating jobs numbers came out, the NY Times published an article about how many jobs there are that cannot be filled due to a lack of talent among the unemployed.

The solution to the skills problem is training, and it is not coming from the belt-tightening private sector. As for retaining the manufacturing jobs derived from the engineering breakthroughs, the Democrats need to be unabashed about keeping jobs in the country, not just conceptually pursuing "growth."

A Black Pelican Event

2010-05-04T10:30:00.000-07:00

ILLUSTRATED: The Gulf of Mexico oil spill displays the need for federal regulation, and access to civil justice.

At this writing, the Gulf of Mexico is being polluted by an errant oil drilling operation. It is now considered the worst oil spill in American history. It also exposes the soft underbelly of three major conservative talking points: Corporatist Economics, Tort Reform, and "States' Rights."

Corporatist Economics- The notion that unregulated commerce produces the best economic output is being put to the test. The fishing industry is paralyzed in the Gulf, sending large numbers of people into government unemployment lines, and it means higher prices for consumers. The tourism economy will be badly hurt since beaches will be slimed, and recreational boating will go down. Regulations exist for a reason, they protect consumers, the environment, and other businesses from the excessive activities on one business. This spill was deemed so unlikely that it would have been considered what Nassim Nicholas Taleb called a black swan event. A major event with a small probability that it does not fit into a business model. Big businesses are able to lobby for a bailout. I call this a black pelican event for the heartbreaking images from the Gulf Coast.

Tort Reform- Civil justice means that any person can hold someone else accountable in a court of law. To conservatives, "tort reform" means impeding this ability in the name of efficient commerce. Don't think that if a commoner doesn't pay their bills or cheats the system that the big company won't sue them. Tort reform stigmatizes the little guy suing the establishment. This breach of duty in the Gulf by British Petroleum and its subsidiary is so devastating to so many people that it will become clear that Republican efforts to cap damages and limit access to federal court* is not just.

State Power- Conservatives want drilling allowed by states. At this writing, there is speculation that the oil spill could hit Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, swing around the Florida Keys and hit Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina. That is just within the United States. To have one state government regulate this, and to have defendants accountable in federal courts in only that state is absurd. No state has the capacity to handle this spill and the interests of several states are affected.

* For a nerdy discussion on civil legal procedure there are state courthouses in every county. They are more populist with elected judges, and sometimes wild jury awards. Therefore conservatives like to limit exposure of companies to federal courts that can be more closely regulated. There are a few federal courthouses in each state, and they are administratively harder to get into.

The Real Arizona Boycott

2010-04-27T18:42:00.000-07:00

ILLUSTRATED: Arizona has unfortunately branded itself as a place unfriendly to brown skinned people. The state does not deserve this shame its politicians have brought upon it.

Workers with highly technical skills and an enterprising drive will be the impact players in the new job market. Many such workers are immigrants, legal and not, and the largest concentrations of immigrants are generally the places with the fastest wealth creation.

These immigrants look like Scandinavian au pairs who overstayed a visa and starting a nursery. They look like a Jamaican seaman who ditched their ship in Miami and started an ethnic catering service. They look like a European grad student illegally doing paid consulting work, or an Asian computer programmer who got fired from a job on an H1-B visa and is selling mobile apps.

In Arizona, law enforcement officers are to request papers from anyone they suspect are undocumented. In the unlikely event that this law lasts long enough to be enforced, it comes down hardest on the race of people who make up the vast majority of illegal immigrants: Latinos.

Some are highly skilled, others not so much. But the message being received by immigrants everywhere is that Arizona is a place where whites are threatened by striving brown people. And every contemporary analysis concludes what the Medicis of Renaissance-Era Florence knew: diversity percolates innovation, and innovation creates wealth.

It will take years for Arizona to shake this reputation. They will lose a lot of brown people and green money.

A Progressive Plan for State & Local Counterterrorism

2010-04-22T13:22:00.000-07:00

ILLUSTRATED: State and local officials need to be organized and trained to prevent and respond to acts of terrorism. This system can and must be fully in line with the Constitution.

LAW: Securing the country is securing the Constitution. Ignoring our Constitution is the name of security is the biggest capitulation to terrorists.
Certainly at the federal level, special legal procedures and sanctions need to apply to terrorism. However it can be done in the American Spirit of judicial review, legislative oversight, and personal liberties.
A core question in domestic homeland security is whether a state or local authority can make the decision to elevate a criminal matter into a national security matter with the different rules and resources applied. Generally, the solution is for state and local law enforcement be trained to detect terrorist activity, to communicate it to federal authorities, and to support federal terrorist investigations. Barring exigent circumstances (hot pursuit of a ticking suicide bomber) local authorities should have to make a legal application to the Justice Department for any special investigative authority. A situation of municipalities passing anti-terrorist ordinances and the inequitable enforcement that would follow would be inefficient and a threat to our civil liberties.

INFORMATION SECURITY: Protocols need to be established across state lines for passing information. States and municipalities differ in their "sunshine" laws, and law enforcement and other government agencies must have confidence in the protection of information they share.

TRAINING: Terrorism is a fundamentally different type of activity from street crime and white collar fraud that American law enforcement is used to. Greed and negative impulses motivate most crime. Terrorism is political and social activism with violence. It is motivated by a perverted sense of romanticism and revenge.
Local police and state troopers must be trained on terrorism in the academy and throughout their careers. Topics should focus on the nature or terrorist organizations, the current worldwide threats, and modern tactics and tools.

DEDICATED UNITS: It is one thing to train every peace officer to recognize terrorism, and it is another to train dedicated units to go on offense against terror groups. Only the largest departments have the scale to organize dedicated units, so states will have to work with groups of counties regionally to develop expertise and centers of excellence to stop the terrorist threat.

POLITICAL RESPONSE PROTOCOLS: Much is ongoing about emergency response to terrorist and natural disaster. With terrorism, local politicians, community leaders, and police community liaisons must engage communities and neighborhoods. Spreading fear and panic not the best method since it dissuades informants. The population would need the situation explained and to know that the government is working to protect them and their constitution. Remember that terrorist acts have been perpetrated by natural born Americans and immigrants of all races.

PRIVATE PROPERTY: By any measure, the vast majority of critical infrastructure is privately held. State and local authorities are in the best position to do threat assessments as to which targets would be the most economically damaging as well as which would be the biggest spectacle.

The effects of Citizens United on Corporate Governance

2010-02-16T17:49:00.000-08:00

ILLUSTRATED: The conservative activists on the Supreme Court do not know the problems they will cause corporate America

A corporation is a set of property rights granted by government. These legal rights afford a set of privileges and responsibilities vis-à-vis taxes, liability, control, and profits because the corporate form is the best way to aggregate capital for economic growth. Corporations can sue, be sued, and also dissolved, all for reasons of commercial efficiency. However granting corporations human rights represents a new benchmark of conservative legal theory.

The holding in the US Supreme Court’s 2010 holding in Citizens United v. FEC is a landmark freedom of speech case. It allows corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money to expressly advocate the election or defeat of specific political candidates in the name of free speech. This overturns over 100 years of legislation and jurisprudence regulating the financing of campaigns.

The jurists in the majority of Citizens United seem to like the idea of giving human rights to property. Their prior rulings have generally been pro-commerce, and they found a case that blends capitalist interests with speech rights. However, despite their ideological bent towards business, none of the five conservative jurists has ever been in business. Meaning, they have never had profit and loss authority in a business. Nor do any of them have substantial consulting experience in modeling a business. Therefore it is not surprising that nowhere in the opinion of Citizens United is any discussion on the effects of this ruling on the efficiency of running a corporation.

Here are some of the unknown factors for corporate governance in the United States:

Foreign Corporations

The holding explicitly dodged the issue of foreign ownership. This writer attended the oral arguments, and the first set of questions from the justices was about the issue of foreign influence in political campaigns. Concern came from justices on both ideological wings, and they did not appear satisfied with the protections to the American interest.

Nevertheless, the ruling could mean that corporations organized in a foreign country, or where foreigners hold more than 50% of the shares. Whether a foreign government or foreign individuals own a corporation, the implications are vast. Trade policy, military technology, and foreign policy could all be influenced from abroad. Essentially, a corporate shell could be used by governments, foreign financiers, political groups, or even terrorist and criminal groups as a vehicle to help elect certain politicians in the United States.

Shareholder Rights

With domestic corporations, inevitably there will be shareholders with differing political and policy agendas than the board, which might be different than the CEO’s. Shareholder meetings could become mini-political conventions. For example, suppose an agricultural company is located in a congressional district near the Mexican border. The incumbent candidate is seen as favoring a regularized process for seasonal migrant workers, and is a vocal leader of the pro-creationism caucus in Congress. The shareholders at the annual meeting might be militantly anti-immigration, and the CEO might be very pro-science. But the board only cares about a free flowing immigration policy. Shareholders would want their dividends bigger, the CEO wants to affirm certain values, and the board wants profits. The potential for discord is immense.

Similarly, an employee owned company in the Rust Belt might have a local member of congress who opposes climate change legislation since most constituents fear for their industrial jobs. The CEO might want to support a candidate who supports climate change legislation and including subsidies for wind turbines, since the CEO wants to convert to wind turbines. However the employee-owners may oppose that, thinking their jobs are threatened, might oppose a CEO’s desire for political donations from the corporate treasury.

Corporations, particularly if they are publicly traded, already have a myriad of competing agendas. Adding in public issues will simply add more burdens to organizational cohesion and morale.

Subsidiaries

There are several scenarios where a parent company and a subsidiary could have different policy agendas. For example, a parent company located near a border or a major seaport might have a large stake in international trade, and local members of congress will be more inclined to also. However, a subsidiary involved in manufacturing might be harmed by the current trade regime. A majority of shareholders of the parent company might come to the conclusion that anti-trade politicians should be supported, while the board based in a coastal area might think otherwise. The shareholder derivative lawsuits could be unending, now that campaign money is a level of influence in the company.

Corporate Veil

Corporations could very well become vehicles to move, some would say launder, capital for business to affect a political agenda. If two candidates have similar economic policies, but are wildly variant on social issues, the potential for board members and officers to abuse the corporate treasury abound. Companies could be bought over solely to have their assets raided for campaign cash. Closely held corporations and family owned businesses have yet another item to fight over.

Corruption of the public agenda was the primary reason for limiting corporate contributions to campaigns for the last century. However, upon looking at the implications, of Citizens United, these regulations might actually have been for the corporations’ own good.

Corporate Money for the Democratic Party

2010-02-16T17:39:00.000-08:00

ILLUSTRATED: There is cash for Democrats in the knowledge industries

A long held notion in American politics is that “Big Business” supports a certain set of pro-capitalist ideas. Colloquially known as “economic conservatism,” this agenda is manifested in policies which are long ingrained in the Republican Party platform. The Supreme Court’s ruling in the case Citizens United v. FEC is expected to unleash a torrent of corporate money to influence elections.

But a look at the future of American business suggests that the Democratic Party and the political Left can do well financially in this new paradigm. Essentially, Republican economic policy posits that a “pro-business environment” means low taxes and low legal and regulatory accountability. Essentially by decreasing the expenses of doing business that are associated with government, and businesses will thrive. The Republicans and their integrated media-finance-grassroots complex are very good at propagating that message.

For Democrats, their conception of a “pro-business environment” is less artfully communicated, but it is essentially a “high education, high infrastructure” environment. Scholars like Richard Florida and writers like Thomas Friedman have cited much data suggesting that America’s metropolises with the largest concentrations of educated people are producing a vastly disproportionate amount to economic output. Anyone eavesdropping a conversation in a wine bar in San Francisco or Washington, DC is likely to overhear conversations reminiscing about times living in Boston and Seattle, or impending moves to grad schools in New York or Chicago. Essentially, about ten metropolitan areas are attracting a large share of people with contemporary job skills and business savvy.

It should be noted that most of these cities mentioned have very high local taxes. Additionally, as bastions of the Democratic Party at the local level, generally have a lot of local business regulations intended for the public interest. Trial lawyers tend to think of these places as “plaintiff friendly” regarding judge and jury pools. However, for the industries concentrated in these areas, having educated people is more important than avoiding a surtax for community colleges. Having public parks powerful wi-fi antennas spurs more economic growth than would a lax zoning law that allow for the development of parkland.

What types of industries are centered in these cities? Generally they are industries in which intellectual capital is the basis of their business models. In other words, patented knowledge is today what owning farmland or factory space used to be in centuries past. High tech, clean tech, biotech, media, and entertainment industries are some of the industries where America is at a competitive advantage. The culture, laws, and social systems in the United States facilitate innovation. These industries need advertising firms, investment firms, consulting firms, and law firms that understand their business to support them. Thus, these types of companies need a lot of educated people near them. Those who want to do business with them in person or virtually need good roads, rails, and broadband lines. These industries do not need government out of the way, so much as they need government to help develop the human capital and platform to thrive in.

A public policy agenda that aims to effect an educated population, a livable ecological system, and a stable financial system will get support from much of the business community.

Higher education, including vocational and community colleges, will be crucial as these industries account for more and more of American commerce. For example, applicants for janitorial jobs at biotech firms need a special certification to dispose of the material. Candidates who support these educational institutions ought to be the recipients of campaign donations from these New Economy companies.

Environmental issues are not just the interest of clean tech companies. Several types of businesses realize that alternative energy will lower their costs of doing business in the long run. Industries in coastal areas will eventually catch on to the fact that rising sea levels will lead to population migrations inward, not to mention the lowering of property values on the coast.

Much of the small business community will welcome a comprehensive regulation of the financial system to ensure predictable interest rates and regular access to capital. Essentially, the financial system is so much in the public interest, it cannot be completely trusted to the whims of private actors.

There are well known consevative groups and think tanks like the ready to spring into action getting corporate America in the election process. I do predict in the coming years that new lobbying groups will form focused on higher education, a sustainable environment, and other progressive causes that help certain businesses. These groups can issue report cards on the voting records of legislators and new candidates, inducing a flow of corporate money to those campaigns.

To be sure, the conservative movement and the Republican Party will be the net victors of this change in campaign financing in the foreseeable future. However, at this writing in early 2010, two trends suggest that traditional big business interests will lose their control of the Republican Party. First, is the fact that the Great Recession is bringing a rapid end to the Industrial Age, and firms based on intellectual capital will gain in relative prominence. Secondly, the antiestablishment “tea party” populism in the GOP could force a fundamental compromise in the party’s agenda away from those who control capital to a more equitable economic policy. Corporations may not want to support candidates who end up winning Republican primaries railing against the excesses of the financial firms.

If the leaders of the Democratic Party and political Left can organize themselves and hone a message to the business community, they can remain a well funded force in American politics.

How Democrats can win from Citizens United: Knowledge Industries must contribute. We support high education and infrastructre

2010-01-21T08:11:00.000-08:00

Finance as a Public Interest

2009-10-19T09:24:00.001-07:00

ILLUSTRATED: The sources of capital aren't necessarily capitalists anymore.

An interesting theme is developing as we slowly recover from the Great Recession. Whether the subject is an individual, a company, or the whole economy, financing is hard to come by. The central financial system, colloquially known as "Wall Street", was saved in the fall of 2008 since it is the central artery for the rest of the economy. It was deemed in the public interest to such an extent that enormous public debt was levied on our posterity in order to prevent a crash most thought then and now was imminent.

Except for a few doctrinaire anti-debt crusaders, most economists and personal financial planners think that people, companies, and governments need access to borrowing. The popular media figure Suze Orman recently pointed out that banks are lowering credit card limits and canceling people's policies all the time. She mentioned that (non-profit) credit unions might be the place to go for credit cards.

With venture capital, a friend of mine in biotech has told me that the only realistic sources of financing for biotech firms these days are the Defense Department and private foundations.

With the investment banking system and insurance system, much of it was (at least temporarily) nationalized last year and heavy regulations are probably coming.

The bottom line is that it is non-profit entities that are bankrolling a lot of the private economy. The upshot is that financing is so important, that it (might) not be able to be entrusted to self-interested for-profit entities. Taking that to the extreme of course is communism, which has been practically and theoretically debunked.

However we have to recognize that financing of capitalism is becoming less private. What remains private will be more regulated, and the government and foundation sectors will become more active than ever.

Passing Cap and Trade might be easier than we think

2009-10-19T09:03:00.000-07:00

ILLUSTRATED: It's about sustainable job creation.

Cap and trade is an issue that divides the Democratic party. Other than immigration, no other issue splits our party coalition like the perils and opportunity of pricing carbon emissions. Republicans, defending Industrial Age firms, are generally against it.

Among some Democrats, the issue is basically that workers in polluting industries and extraction industries will suffer a lot of layoffs. The argument then becomes that this is bad social policy to change these communities so quickly. Generally these Democrats are in the Rust Belt and rural areas.

Democrats from coastal cities are more optimistic about the future since the engineering jobs and investors will be in their districts. They stress the economic advantage for the country, as well as environmental and national security imperatives for getting off oil and coal.

We always knew the Industrial Age was ending. However, the Great Recession has forced the end before we were able to handle it. In turn, that might speed up the passage of Cap and Trade since there are so few factory jobs left to lose. So Midwestern politicians and Republicans might not have enough bargaining chips (jobs to be saved) as previously thought. When things are this bad, why not try something new?

The case for Cap and Trade is basically creating new energy sources is the only way to create a new sustainable industry. If the response is "drill baby drill", just say "the most important natural resource in energy is brain tissue."

The case for Health Care

2009-09-04T21:38:00.001-07:00

ILLUSTRATED: In the Free Agent Age, government must provide the platform of benefits that employers used to provide.

The Democrats' chief problem in selling health care is quite ironic. Even as it becomes clearer and clearer that employers will not provide the same benefits as before, most people (indeed even a greater proportion of voters) feel insured. The general economic instability makes people cling to what they have, and fear change.

The back story is this: in the Industrial Age, scale gave a company advantage, so big companies dominated. Thanks to the Labor Movement, big companies provided benefits to help care for our families. The Information Age will require companies to be slim, smart, and speedy. More people will become independent consultants. Only the government can provide the benefits they need in the form of a public insurer or seeding non-profit risk pools.

As for the moral argument, it was summed up in 1988 by Mike Dukakis when he said that the first thing an American should hear in a hospital is "Where does it hurt, not how will you pay?" But the moral argument only reaches so many people. The economic argument is that entrepreneurial energy is limited by an inefficient health care system. Combining both, a grerat business idea should not be stopped by a cancerous cell.

The New Corporate Agenda: High Education and High Infrastructure

2009-07-01T01:56:00.001-07:00

ILLUSTRATED: The new corporate money that will come into campaigns can help the Democrats

Yesterday's post was a warning about the probable changes in campaign finance law. The grassroots funding network that the Democrats built in 2008 will be met by corporate funding thanks to right wing activist justices. However, this does not have to be a bad thing.

Corporations are not bad things, they are self interested things. In general, a growing corporate sector is in the public interest. Many corporations want to support the Democrats agenda.

Industries like mechanized manufacturing, agriculture, extraction, transportation, and retail generally want low taxes and low accountability. However clean tech, high tech, and bio tech are different in nature. Their main capital is intellectual. To them an educated workforce and adequate infrastructure are the most important factors of production.

Democrats, perhaps led by Mark Warner, need to harness the CEOs of these sectors and support the Democrats' agenda.

Right Wing Activist Jururiprudence

2009-06-30T04:44:00.000-07:00

ILLUSTRATED: Scalia and Thomas have overturned the most legislation is the last 15 years, Clinton's sppointments have overturned the fewest.

The "Hillary: The Movie" case will be used to open up corporate spending in campaigns. The conservative movement knows that in 2008 the Democrats sewed a funding and organizational network to keep them in power for a generation. Overturning prior legislation to achieve a conservative goal will be the next episode of right wing judicial activism.

"Family Values" and the Rural vote

2009-06-24T12:21:00.000-07:00

ILLUSTRATED: Just speak concretely about Democratic programs that value families.

This month, two socially conservative Republicans (Senator Ensign and Governor Sanford) have admitted adultery. The hypocrisy of its leaders is doing serious damage to the GOP brand. However, we might ask, why did they campaign on this and why was it successful?

My take is that rural states and rural counties generally have an ideology and political culture of limited government. In addition, non-profit capacity is far below what is needed in those places.

Thus it is not surprising that in such a region, people will listen to a politician talking about "family values", it is what we yearn for. There are great benefits to programs from governments, non-profits, and religious organizations. These programs help raise children, help care for our elders, and build cohesive communities for family life.

To counter this, simply list programs that help people and ask if local taxes create value for the public. You'll be surprised how responsive the American people are to well spent tax money.

How to defend the Deficits

2009-06-14T08:10:00.000-07:00

ILLUSTRATED: We're still climbing out of the Bush debacle AND moving forward for the 21st Century Economy.

For all of this talk of "unsustainable deficits" there are two things to keep in mind.

#1: The Democratic Party has long realized that to be economically competitive, America needs a nationwide health care risk pool with cost controls, we need to get off oil, and we need fundamental improvements in education. President Obama is committed to that. And...........

#2: The natural, private economy stalled in September, 2008. The housing market was already breaking, and the overall banking system would have collapsed but for massive, immediate government intervention.

For point one, the opportunity cost of not doing transforming health care, energy, and education are greater than these deficits and the inflation and interest rate hikes that may come.

As for point two, coming out of a "severe recession" takes years. The GOP is entirely responsible for derailing Bill Clinton's economy. I write this at only the 9 month point.

With conservatives all of a sudden being born again on fiscal responsibility, as them the counterfactual. Give us an alternative, and we will discuss.

Who do you trust to make these tough choices?

2009-06-01T04:20:00.000-07:00

ILLUSTRATED: With excruciating decisions that government must make, the key is that the voters trust your party to do these things.
As a Californian I like to come budgeting by direct democracy to a football teams where fans get in on the play calling.* In the next year, the social fabric our state will be shook up more than any earthquake ever has.
There will be cuts, the issue is WHO will make the cuts. With detention of terrorism suspect, there will be indefinite detentions, the question is WHO is doing the detention.

Branding a candidate and a party is about getting the public to trust that you to handle these issue and not the other side.

*In California we have 45% of the budget set by the voters, 25% in federal mandates, and Prop 13 capping property taxes at 1%. Imagine a football coach who wants to script his first 20 plays (as is typical). Now imagine if the fans in the stands could vote on 9 of those plays, and the NFL Commissioner's Office could mandate 5 of those plays, and back in 1978 the fans in the stands voted to limited season ticket prices to 1% increases a year. That team would go 0-16, and would be losing millions a year.

What I've learned in 7 years as a political activist

2009-04-11T14:34:00.000-07:00

ILLUSTRATED: Keep this straight and you'll be a keen observer (or better yet, actor) in politics

Strategy

The core values of the ideologies
Liberals: Human Rights, Equity, Justice
Conservatives: Property Rights, Efficiency, Order

The essence of politics:
Interests and passions

There are three parts to democratic government. You need to understand all three and master at least one:
Getting power (electioneering): You must understand the American people, their locales, their history, and their interests.
Wielding power (legislation and bureaucracy): You must understand how the legislature and mechanics of the government and court system work.
Effecting power (public policy): You must understand the theory and practice of governing.

The quality of mind of a good political strategist:
The ability to think outside of your interests, and empathize outside of your passions

At a conceptual level, a campaign is a contest in value systems. When you hear "popularity contest," it really means which candidate has created a persona that represents the way of life of the majority.
At a human level, a campaign is a head game between the candidates.

The real way to learn what the two parties stand for is NOT speeches, literature, or commercials. Look at judicial rulings from Democratic and Republican appointed judges.

Electioneering is objective(adj) because there is an objective(noun) on a specific date.
Social activism is subjective, and amorphous.
The skill set to do one, is not the skill set to do the other. Electioneering mostly uses the left brain, and social activism mostly uses the right brain.

In a Primary with at least 5 serious candidates, it is better to be well known to 20% of the electorate, than to be known well by 80% of the electorate.

When dealing with a political figure, know when someone is fundamentally an agitator or fundamentally a politician. Per Richard Hofstadter, agitators (eg Sharpton) raise issues and are not responsible for policy. Politicians (eg Clinton) form a consensus and cannot be moral absolutists. Both are critical in public life. Whether they hold public office or not, know what kind of figure you are dealing with.

When running against a primary opponent who is running "just to make a point", there is a value to what they are doing and their extreme positions. There is also a modicum of fraudulence, because they are agitators pretending to be politicians. If you must engage them, essentially pretend to take them literally, and then focus on the absurd consequences of their policy proposals.

What I call the "Agitator's Dilemma" is that an agitator has to be somewhat shrill and crazy to get attention to their issues. But they cannot be too shrill and crazy since the populace will associate their cause with craziness. Remember the messenger is part in parcel with the message.

The reason to be "diplomatic" and "respectful" is to earn trust. Whether dealing with superiors, colleagues, partners, subordinates, or adversaries, if they trust you in your motives you will be most effective.

If you are shrill and offensive with others in the political arena, you may or may not be effective in getting your message out and winning support. But you will fail to be effective in the negotiating room. That goes from neighborhood activism to international diplomacy.

Leadership

Leadership: 1) Having a vision, 2) taking personal ownership of that vision, 3) persuasively communicating that vision, and 4) executing the steps toward that vision.

As for execution, the key balancing act is delegating according to the comparative advantages of your subordinates' talents, but personally overseeing the few make-or-break decisions.

The trait of the greatest leaders:
The ability to tell the whole truth in a way that is understandable and props up morale
(Think of Lincoln and Churchill)

The best test for leaders:
The ability to say as much as possible in the fewest number of words.
(A note on this point, "integrity" is the expected answer. I think there are lots of honest leaders who simply cannot articulate the whole truth without losing morale. So they tell half truths. Communication ability is paramount.)

The best test for intelligence:
The size of your vocabulary

The five most powerful words in the English Language:
“I was wrong, I’m sorry”
(only people strong enough to utter those words should be in positions of power)

The sixth and seventh most powerful words
“Thank you”

On Accountability: subordinates follow orders.....orders follow superiors.
When you give an order, you own it. Never hang a subordinate out to dry like a pawn.

The most courageous acts for political figures are when they take on interests in their own party's power base.

The Leader of an organization is 90% responsible for the culture.

The values of an organization are determined by how it allocates resources (the budget) and the character of the people it promotes within.

Good policy makers have a high IQ
Good politicians have a high EQ

Legislators, executives, and judges must be under the rule of constitutional law

When negotiating with an opponent you do not trust...
Don't listen to what they offer in private,
Only listen to what they defend in public.
(Adapted from something Tom Friedman said)

Communication

The key to branding a candidate and a party:
Get the majority of the population to trust your side to handle the issues according to their values

The key to political communication:
Translate law and policy prose into campaign poetry that resonates with people’s values. If your communications director is not doing this, replace them with someone who will.
(i.e. With Health Care, say to liberal audiences that it is a right all must have access to. With conservatives tell them about the efficiencies of scale that help businesses)

The key to an effective speech: When written and delivered, the intellectual points should be hit when the emotion of the audience is peaking.

Legal and Academic Communication: Spell out every nuance of your reasoning.
Political Communication: Say as much as possible in the fewest number of words. (eg Change, Yes We Can). Less is more!

Being a charismatic or dynamic speaker does not mean you will be an effective stump speaker. That is why most elected politicians are not great orators, namely George W. Bush. A good stump speaker is disciplined and repeats a few things. Compare a jazz bass player who plays the same few notes all night, with Jimi Hendrix, Eric Clapton, or Eddie Van Halen. Walking out of a jazz club everybody has the same beat in their heads. Not so with a virtuoso guitar concert.

Speechwriters, pry off the semicolon button from your keyboard. Sentences should be crisp.

Beware of ghastly hyperbole. Politicians and activists use words like "slavery, plantation, Nazi, holocaust, rape, genocide" etc. Generally a bad idea. Speakers use it for shock effect or to spill out every grievance they have. All it does is jar the audience and make them associate you with an uncomfortable feeling.

Enacting a sustainable policy initiative requires a political narrative that is intellectually honest from the beginning.

When speaking, know your real audience. If you are speaking to a grassroots group, and there is a mega-fundraiser in the room, (s)he may be your key audience. If you are at a big rally with live tv cameras, speak to the tv audience.

There is really no such thing as "off the record". There is only one reason to talk to a reporter and that is to get inside information out.

Softball reporters who think they are hardball reporters ask stupid questions to an intractable issues in order to spur a 5 minute discussion. Such a question might be "How can we afford this health care program?" Deal with it by breaking down the underlying premises and defining the issue. Such as "The cost of health care to the government is great, the opportunity cost of not doing it is much greater to the economy."

Per the previous question, a TV/Radio host out for spin and quotes will try to interrupt you as you define underlying issues in a lawyer-like way. The best media guests are not distracted and stay focused on getting the audience to understand the real issues.

Fundraising

The key to political fundraising:
The relationships you already have with people.

Quoting Mark Halperin, "relationships are more important than transactions." In other words, at an event, talk to people and find out their political interests. Build a rapport and send courtesy emails even if they give a small amount. You can go back to them at a later election.

“Thank You” notes are the most important tool in a bundler’s arsenal.
In other words, the people who will raise the most money in 2010, are the people who send the most Thank You cards and Holiday cards in 2009.

Be aggressive, but never let solicitations get in the way of your existing friendships.

Never over-promise to the finance director how much you can raise.

The best sources of money are the people who have already given.

Organizing

The key to organizing:
Recruit (pay highly if you have to) talented people in key positions

A campaign office should be run like business. It is NOT a community center where people hang out.

A well managed office does not look busy. Until the final days of a campaign, there is no reason to have people sleeping in the office, and wearing clothes from yesterday.

Q: What do you call a campaign manager who constantly said "no, that's not in our agenda", "no that's not in the budget", and "no, while we're sympathetic, that's not in our message"?
A: Most people call that person a &%$#*@! I call that person Transition Director and incoming Chief of Staff. Because that is the discipline that wins election campaigns.

Authority and control of the campaign organization should reside locally with the campaign manager, finance director, and communication director. The proper role of outside consultants is to spice it up with new ideas and technical expertise.

With campaign volunteers, 10% of people who sign a sign-up sheet actually show up to something else. And 10% of those will become a leader or a dedicated volunteer. This is the magic 1%.

With major supporters, never spend money on them when stroking their ego will do.

On the issue of telecampaigning, local campaign workers who are networked socially with voters are best. Campaign foot soldiers from elsewhere who present themselves in a culturally appropriate way are better than nothing. Campaign foot soldiers who present like outsiders are worse than nothing. I call those foot soldiers "campaign suicide bombers" since they turn off more voters than they attract.

On the touchy issue of out-of-state phone calls from people with regional, foreign, or ethnic accents, I say this: people respond to those who look and sound like them to an extent. But people also respond to authentic passion. If you believe in the candidate, that passion will manifest itself in your voice and you will be very effective.

For a campaign manager or field coordinator, the hardest month of the entire campaign is the month after the primaries end and you have to absorb supporters of losing candidates from your own party. Often they have a less than positive attitude.

With organizing and fundraising, the phone is ultimately more effective than email.

With persuasion phone calls, they should only be done by a trained group of selected volunteers. Otherwise it is a complete waste of time and resources. It is THE most difficult thing to do in a campaign.

The most commonly wasted opportunity I see on campaigns is failing to have a process for glomming onto talented people who volunteer to help. Treat their sweat equity and intellectual capital the same as a donor, before and after the campaign.

If you are running a campaign meeting hijacked by blowhards, end the meeting by saying "those who want to commit to four hours a week to the campaign, come meet me at the end."

When starting a grassroots non-profit organization: 1) Get talented people. 2) Focus on doing one or two things well. 3) Money follows success. 4) Then you can scale up.

As an epilogue to the previous post, doing grassroots organizing teaches the meaning of the phrase "no good deed goes unpunished". Your organization can only do A and B, and perhaps dabble in C. The representatives of interests D, E, F, G,...and Z will get jealous and criticize you. Stay focused.

Tactics

The key to campaign innovation is to align new technology and techniques with classic principles of communication and organization

What a candidate hopes for/fears the most is organized money coming into the district from elsewhere to influence their election.

When arguing with an academic, bring them to reality with concrete examples. Remind them that they generate ideas in an elite setting, they are not accountable for leading a populace.

When debating a demagogue/talk show host/agitator, remember they are not accountable for the implications of policies. Lay them out, and hold them in their position, from which the try to slither away. You are like a fort (standing for something), they are like mobile guerillas lobbing mortars.

Most people, even professional politicians, do not see beyond the interests and passions of their power base. Study each politician you deal with, then you know what they hope and fear.

When a dogmatic person is speaking in absolute, uncompromising terms, there is still almost always an application relevant to a group they are sympathetic with. For example, when explaining to a conservative military wife the importance of public employees having defined benefits, I simply asked her what would happen if the military did away with defined benefits.

Similar to the previous comment, when someone is advocating PROCESS (ie states rights vs federal supremacy) almost always there is an ulterior motive about SUBSTANCE. Pick an example of hypocrisy and call them out on it.

In a Primary, criticize your rival, but do NOT say anything that suggests they are not qualified for the office.

Intra-party debates are healthy. But after a primary, we rise and fall as a party. Everything starts with getting your party into power.

When talking to a base constituency, remember that while people like to hear the truth, they don't like to hear the truth about themselves. Carefully craft any "reformist" speech. Don't give a "Sista' Soulja" speech cussing out your base until after you have your party's nomination.

Never let an attack go unanswered. Even if you are not a senior person on a campaign, you can comment on blogs or call into talk radio to clear the air.

The Reality

Most people, most of the time, prefer preaching to teaching. Meaning, they would rather hear a charismatic speaker validate their worldview and value system, than have an intelligent speaker expand their world view.

Whenever you speak thoughts that are out-of-the-box, or explain the perspective of the other side, a lot of your own partisans will distrust you because you are not conforming. Sad but true.

To reform a political party: 1) take disparate groups and form a platform intellectually, 2) translate your policy goals into a message, 3) raise lots of capital in large chunks and small bits, 4) organize, 5) find a messenger.

Ignore polls about the education of voters supporting certain candidates. Formal education has little to do with whether you are 1) an out-of-the-box thinker or an orthodox thinker or 2) if you make decisions based on analysis or emotion.

Most people don't like to think critically. You have to craft your speeches and talking points to connect with people's existing schemas. Use real parables to communicate.

An honest person cannot properly function in a corrupt system. And, this is the kicker, a corrupt system cannot properly function with an honest person who refuses to conform. That is the theme of "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" and "Serpico".

"Elitist" means you have an Ivy League degree and have a cool persona. It is a divisive term to define an other. People use it when you force them to think critically. If you are charged with it, say you are about "excellence", and call them a "mediocrist".

The biggest difference between being a business leader and a politician is that a politician must suffer fools.

Fools vote. Politically organized fools are no joke.

Governments with developed political and legal systems are preoccupied with markets.
Governments without developed political and legal systems are preoccupied with controlling their people.

Face to Face Campaigning*

The general approach is: 1) Start a friendly conversation, 2) observe the voters attitude, 3) offer empathy, 4) help clarify the situation with your candidates policies eg "so perhaps an affordable health care risk pool might help you start a business," and finally 5) ask for their vote.

Concretely what you do is:
-How do you decide how to vote? (Don't ask about issues since most people don't understand the issues)
-Listen to their feelings
-Ask about the implications of those feelings. eg"So your factory closed...do you expect the private sector to re-train and re-educate you?"
-Be relevant up to the point to hitting a hot-button issue and getting the voter too emotional.
-Don't judge people, take them as they are and improvise.
*Many of these pointers are from Dr. Katherine Forrest's seminars.

Lobbying/Advocacy

The lobbying process:

1) Commercial groups, interest groups, grassroots groups identify a problem.
2) Wonks and lawyers formulate a policy.
3) It is then winnowed down to key recommendations and a message is formulated.
4) Citizens and professional lobbyists go to work.
5) Legislators go to work. Most bills fail.
6) Regulators try to implement

Effective advocates have two things: a realistic objective and a clear message.

Figure out the right level of government, the applicable executive agency heads, the applicable legislative subcommittees and staffers.

Before you contact the officials, get the private coalition organized and on message.

Study each key legislator. What are their pet issues? What are their ambitions? What is the nature of their district? Who supports their campaigns?

Contact the legislator ahead of time, and be respectful to all staffers always. Ask for the staffer who deals with that particular issue, unless you already have a personal relationship with the legislator.

Offer to "help" by being a source of statistics and information. You can never have too many lines of argument. But most importantly, personal stories move legislators (who are people after all).

Use the media wisely. Do not embarrass the legislators you have to work with.

Miscellaneous Tidbits

There are two kinds of smart people: those who think they know everything, and those who realize the scope of how little they know.

The two most important people in someone's life are the person(s) who signs their checks and the person(s) they sleep with.

Many people in politics have small minds, but big egos.

Not withstanding the previous comment, it does not matter how big your ego is. What matters is that you are in control of it.

Political sophistication does not merely mean erudition. It means the ability to size people up, individually or as groups, and 1) empathize and 2) communicate through their frame of reference. Sophistication is not a simply seeing the global map, it is like a zoom and pivot function on an internet map.

Being well networked is not the size of your rolodex nor is it the status of its people.
The effective size of your network is how many of those people return your calls and emails.

Be prepared for the bubble of hot air your opponent will blow. Be ready with a “pin prick statement”, a concrete statement that spurs critical thinking.

At gatherings dominated by the ideological types, the biggest applause lines are not those that attack the other party. They are those that attack the moderate wing of their own party as soft.

Dogmatists and centrists (“ideological fusionists”) need to respect each other. The hard core people represent legitimate values about what the party should stand for. The moderates are the gateways for bringing in new voters, and keeping our policies current.

For Democrats: Follow Mark Warner's example. First prove you are fiscally responsible and a good manager. Then, the American people are willing to fund programs in the public interest.

For Democrats: Beware of scientific fundamentalism taking over the party like religious fundamentalists have the other party. Make a moral argument for things like: bioethics and life issues, obesity and wellness issues, and environmental stewardship issues.

For Republicans: Face facts, the Nixon coalition is dead. Go libertarian on social issues, outrace Democrats to win over the growing ranks of the self employed.

For Republicans: As of this writing in the summer of 2009, your party has been taken over by extremists. Per Dick Morris in his book "Power Plays", Division does not necessarily lead to Conquest. Jettison the nut jobs from your new coalition, they are more drag than thrust.

Your Place in Politics

Never underestimate the change one person can effect. A small group of talented, passionate people is even better.

If you are selecting a candidate to support early ask:
Who is your favorite Supreme Court justice?
Give an example of taking on an interest in your own party?
What is the proper role of government, and what shouldn't it be doing?

The best place to look for the absolutely perfect candidate: your mirror.

Last and perhaps most importantly....
Avoid supporting candidates who are moralizing and self righteous. Just like in real life, these are usually dark souls.
Support candidates whose careers and lives show a pattern of moral work. Also surround yourself with these people in life.

3 points to solidify Democratic popularity

2009-03-23T12:22:00.000-07:00

ILLUSTRATED: 1)link smart regulation to economic growth, 2) link assault weapons to Mexican narco-terrorism, and 3) expose the GOP as economic royalists for their hypocrisy on contracts.

Regulation: I'll bet that 70% of Americans agree with the statement "government should regulate business and finance so that it can sustain itself, but not suppress it." Use the metaphor of a tide (the economy) that rises and falls, but you need a system of levies to regulate the water and keep it consistent and safe. The American people see this through our frame, that government is an actor in capitalism.

Assault weapons- Mexico's border towns have violence at an extreme level, stretching civil control to the breaking point. The nexus between narco-terrorism in Mexico and American assault weapons is undeniable. Perhaps after the 2010 elections Congress should try to repeal it. It will allow Democrats from conservative districts to avoid the issue in 2010, but put 2012 GOP presidential hopefuls on the spot.

Abrogating contracts- The classist hypocrisy is very obvious here. Labor contracts for manufacturing workers are called "legacy costs" by conservatives. But bonuses for executives who run their banks into the ground are sacrosanct contracts. As are mortgages that are too high for ordinary people.

AIG, a crucial turning point in American political history

2009-03-17T18:55:00.000-07:00

ILLUSTRATED: The GOP is discussing the AIG issue from a progressive point of view.

In 2005, George Lakoff's theory of "Framing" was the flavor of the year among Democratic activists. His theory stresses the importance of the vantage point from which issues are discussed. The famous example is "tax relief", which implies taxes are oppressive, a bad thing. As opposed to taxes being the dues of citizenship, the funding of a public trust.

This week, the second week of March 2009, I see as a turning point in the dialog of American politics. Words are thoughts, thus the thinking of the country is changing.
This week, the dominant story in the news is the bipartisan outrage of bonuses paid to AIG, the insurance company which was central to the meltdown of 2008. As of this week $170 billion had been paid in bailout money.

By complaining about these bonuses, Republicans are 1) suggesting the bonuses be taxed, 2) criticizing the Obama Administration for not attaching strings to the bailout, and 3)suggesting that these companies should be regulated.

In other words, Republicans are debating this issue in a progressive frame. Democrats now have the political cover to argue for sensible regulations, and sensible taxes on the very wealthy.

Rushing the Limbaugh Fraternity

2009-03-02T19:09:00.000-08:00

ILLUSTRATED: A political party must stand for ideas, and not be based on a charismatic figure. Especially a figure not even in the arena.

With today's humiliating and pathetic apology by RNC Chairman Michael Steele to Rush Limbaugh, it has become clear that Limbaugh is a cult of personality that trumps any policy proposal. In developing democracies, parties are usually ethnic or based around one person. In advanced democracies, parties are based on ideas.

GOP candidates cannot cross Limbaugh. Essentially there will be a Rush Limbaugh Primary in every open House and Senate race in 2010 and 2012. As for the 2012 GOP Primary, I envision every candidate visiting Rush's studio. They have to pledge ("Rush") to become accepted by him, like a fraternity.

The Republican party is truly in a pathetic state. Limbaugh is a right wing centripetal force that will force GOP candidates so far right, they will be un-electable. They need 1) contemporary policy ideas and 2) candidates with the courage to say them. Let's just say Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are sitting pretty.

National Security is to the Left what Economics is to the Right

2009-02-21T02:33:00.000-08:00

ILLUSTRATED: There is a role for a quarterback, and a role for the cheerleaders.

In a follow up to the last post about the death of ideology, I am moved to write about a story that just broke. The Obama Administration decided that it will take the legal position that prisoners captured inside a theater of war, cannot have access to American civilian courts.
The headlines are trying to sensationalize it as "Obama keeps the same policy as Bush." Well I cannot think of any president of any ideology who would not have that policy.
Activists have to realize that when you are in the crucible, you have to get things done. Period. There is a value to having voices cheering for one methodology or another, but as we all must respect activists, they must have empathy and respect for politicians.
Going back to last fall when the Bush Administration had to go against all of their ideological precepts to keep the economy on life support, their right wing supporters were aghast, but largely silent. Now it is clear that economic policy is to right wing activists is what national security policy is to much of the Left*. Their leaders can't ever life up to the purists. It's just reality.

*As an aside, since the Vietnam War, the Left has been associated with pacifism. Liberalism is no more fundamentally pacifist than conservatism, but liberals have had a different policy agenda, and generally were not as hostile to communism.

The death of ideology

2009-01-05T16:55:00.000-08:00

ILLUSTRATED: It's getting results stupid

Eighteen years ago when communism fell in Eastern Europe, people said that Karl Marx was proven wrong. Now with the current crisis people say that Adam Smith and Ronald Reagan are proven wrong. The reality is that hard headed ideology is wrong.
Bill Clinton turned the White House into a think tank and the economy and public balance sheets soared. George W. Bush turned the White House in to a right wing temple and the nation is in a nosedive.
Barack Obama and his team are here to govern. They cherish the government as a trust, and will use it to make sound public policy and sustain capitalism.
With the economy, initiative and enterprise will be fomented, but only up to the point of greed.
With domestic security, we will be kept safe, but within a legal framework.
Federal judges will be appointed who apply the Constitution to 2009, not 1789.
And our foreign policy will be based on strength through good relationships.

Ideologues prescribe how to go about getting results. The world is too complicated for a universal prescription. President Obama, like Clinton, will get results blending all kinds of ideas.

GOP, thanks for Ohio and Indiana

2008-12-12T02:32:00.000-08:00

ILLUSTRATED: The GOP is a century behind, that's why they won't be in the White House for a long time.

After the GOP scuttled the auto bailout last night, it is clear that they are willing to sacrifice the manufacturing base in the Great Lakes area, or at least tell the erstwhile middle class that they and their families are now working class.

The way I see it, Democrats now have a floor of about 270. Granted the Great Lakes and Northeast will shed some electoral strength after the next census, but I see Maryland, the north bank of the Ohio river, out to the Mississippi as an electoral Great Wall that the Republicans cannot cross. The GOP just gave us Indiana and Ohio last night, so combined with the ever blue West Coast the White House (and thus the Federal Bench) will be to our liking for some time to come.

The GOP is clearly still stuck in an 1890s mentality of being anti-union and support a society of a few powerful business people. Democrats need to make the case the government is a public trust that will invest in the people making us a stronger whole.

Ironies of GWB

2008-12-12T02:12:00.000-08:00

ILLUSTRATED: The failure of the Bush Administration is forcing Americans to to save and conserve. But it is not enough.

The collapse of the global economic system, American geopolitical strength, and perhaps the industrial base is forcing the American people to tighten up. The household debt is down, and people want smaller cars.

But conservatives, stop grinning. You may think that cutting government led to more personal responsibility. However, the American people will figure out that they are better off with government creating efficiencies of scale and sensible controls to sustain capitalism.

Personal debt is down, but so is net worth.

We are not doomed to become a Third World country. Democrats have a case to make that with a national health care risk pool, easier access to educational loans, more vocational spending, more infrastructure, and sensible regulations the American economy can grow with smart government.

Obama, Biden,and H. Clinton's key resume bullet

2008-12-01T08:34:00.000-08:00

ILLUSTRATED: All policy must be in a constitutional framework.

Constitutional Law professor was a job held by the incoming president, vice president, and secretary of state. That means the rule of law will prevail in national security policy making. Earlier this year I wrote that presidents, not generals make policy. Generals set and execute strategy, colonels execute operations, and captains and lieutenants execute tactics.

I was not complete. Above all of that is the rule of constitutional law.

The proper context for a Team of Rivals

2008-11-23T09:23:00.000-08:00

ILLUSTRATED: The executive branch has a superstructure not analogous to the 1860s.

President-elect Obama should be commended for hiring strong, smart people for his Cabinet. Some of whom he has not been associated with before, or were in fact intraparty rivals. People compare his with Lincoln, however the analogy is not correct. In Lincoln's day, there was not much of a White House staff between the president and Cabinet. Now there is a tremendous White House staff that coordinates across the executive branch.
President-elect Obama will have mostly supporters, many from Chicago, counseling him in the West Wing, and will have the experienced hands running the departments. Centralized control from change agents, and execution from people who know what they are doing. So there will in fact be CHANGE.

The two best articles of Election '08...after 10 days anyway

2008-11-14T12:00:00.000-08:00

ILLUSTRATED: Framing the political discourse is key. Also Obama won because he kept the same message, was very aggressive in fundraising, and organized right down to city blocks. New technology simply facilitates classic campaign operations.

This piece on Prop 8 is used not to advocate for an issue, but to describe how a changing social attitude was defeated. This piece in the Huffington Post explains how forces looking to overturn the legalization of gay marriage in California, outmaneuvered the pro-gay marriage forces. Simply put, they defined the terms of the debate as to who was imposing a lifestyle on whom. Was it conservative groups codifying the law in the face of changing attitudes, or the gay community forcing its lifestyle in peoples' faces. Americans do not like to be imposed on, so the side that framed that subtext won the election.

Ryan Lizza wrote a great piece in the New Yorker explaining the success of Obama, from scratch. Here are the points to grow on:

1. The Genesis: with a pollster, figure out the zeitgeist of the electorate. Not just the primary electorate, but the general electorate.
2. Given your candidate's persona and record, pick the theme, values, and lifestyle that resonate with the electorate. In other words, frame the debate such that a conversation about the election leads someone to your candidates side.
3. Pick the issues to illustrate that theme from #2. For example issues like talking to Iran or oppsing a gas tax cut are metaphors used to demonstrate that you are different than conventional Washington.
4. Set clear lines of authority and a professional culture in the campaign office. The center of power should be with organic staffers, not consultants.
5. Study voter data precinct by precinct. Register people to changes the facts in your favor. Then allocate resources and organize accordingly.
6. Raise money like crazy. Make small donors feel important, because in fact they really are.
7. Do the best you can to stay on message. At all costs, maintain control of your public image.

The politics of social change

2008-11-14T11:45:00.000-08:00

ILLUSTRATED: On cultural and social issues, when you are ahead of your time, campaign on a classic, inclusive theme.

Gay marriage is, at this writing, a very controversial issue that cuts across both parties' bases. Know matter what one's thoughts and feelings are about it, this short post on the Huffington Post succinctly describes how to campaign on any social issue whose popularity is changing.

1. Do be inclusive, don't be angry. Think "web issues", not wedge issues". In other words, reach out to constituencies and make the case for shared values and interests. Bottom line, make people identify with you by focusing on a classic theme (ie Liberty, Union, Community, Freedom, Equality etc.).

2. Regarding #1, organize for it. Meet with the leaders of other groups and coalesce.

3. Even if you do not organize fully with certain constituencies, still go talk to them in their media and communities.

4. There are many elections and many lawsuits. In each, figure out your goal and zero in on it. Don't fight multiple battles at once.

How to talk about the distribution of Resources

2008-10-24T11:41:00.000-07:00

ILLUSTRATED: Democrats want a healthy distribution of resources. It starts with fiscal policy.

Yesterday Alan Greenspan confessed that his "ideology" was "flawed" in testimony before Congress. He went along with easy money at a time, post 2001, of fiscal irresponsibility. Remember back in 1993, he was the only Republican in Washington to support Bill Clinton's deficit reduction package that raised taxes on the rich. With sound fiscal policy, the government stopped competing with business in the long term capital (bond) markets and long term economic expansion came to America. With Clinton's solid fiscal policy Greenspan sould look like a "Maestro" fine tuning interest rates here and there.

Think of the economy like your body's circulatory system. If you get hooked up to an EKG, you can measure the efficiency and effectiveness of getting blood to all parts of your body. Clinton had the circulation (distribution of resources) as good as it had ever been. George W. Bush immediately raised the legs and arms and tried to pool as much blood in the head thinking that that was best for circulation. Well, we almost died over the last six weeks, saved by a blood transfusion.

Barack Obama and the Democrats will distribute the economy in a way that everyone takes part.

Beware of today's Supreme Court ruling

2008-10-17T17:19:00.001-07:00

ILLUSTRATED: The Supreme Court today subtly attacked the rights of individuals to enforce federal laws.

There was a high profile decision from the High Court today that is considered a political victory for Democrats. The Democratic Secretary of State of Ohio does not have to throw out 200,000 of the 600,000 new voting registrants of 2008. The GOP claimed that there were discrepancies, in the applications and the state records. But the Secretary successfully argued that the GOP was trying to prevent people from voting. Moving, foreclosure, and clerical error could be the explanation.

2 things are to be learned:
First, the Roberts Court does not want people, or private parties enforcing federal laws when they are not expressly authorized to do to in the legislation. This could have a bad effect when the federal government is not effectively enforcing the law on its own. This was very much a state's rights ruling. Therefore.........
It is crucial to elect Democratic state officials to make sure justice is done and good policy is enforced. Democrats are not necessarily anti state power, we believe in good government at all levels.

Big business and the GOP

2008-10-04T05:05:00.000-07:00

ILLUSTRATED: The Democrats are making inroads to the longest political alliance in history.

As I see American political history, parties have shifted over time. Things like federal power vs state sovereignty, isolationism vs interventionism, North vs South etc. However, the one constant has been that going back to Hamilton and the Federalists, the Republicans have always had the support of big business/finance. (Note big not small).
But today, the fact that more Democrats voted for the Finance Rescue than Republicans, I see the GOP becoming a modern day Know Nothing Party. It will become as David Brooks says a Sams Club party. Largely middle and working class whites, who feel little connection to the financial system.

Soviet Socialist Republic of Wall Street

2008-09-16T18:51:00.000-07:00

ILLUSTRATED: To explain how we'd handle Wall Street, just make the sports analogy: you need referees to play the game. Sports are still exciting with records broken.

What a ten day stretch! We have a federal takeover of the secondary mortgage market (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) and now the Federal Reserve has an 80% stake in A.I.G., the global insurance and re-insurance giant. Well it took over 28 years, but George H.W. Bush is vindicated: Voodoo economics is now exposed as pooh pooh economics.

Points to get across:
-75 years ago, FDR was called a socialist with his banking reforms. What he did was set up capitalism to be self-sustaining.
-The key to reducing government's bad influence on markets is not necessarily cutting regulation, is it cutting the deficit. Then the government doesn't compete with business for borrowed capital. Bill Clinton and Robert Rubin understood that.
-Democrats set up a process to properly allocate resources throughout the economy. Sure on April 15 the rich a bit more in taxes, but it is an investment in a lower deficit,...which leads to lower interest rates (Wall Street's tax, or the price of money). So pay more out of pocket to Uncle Sam, and we stop swiping the national credit card. By running deficits, we either pay more in taxes eventually or higher interest rates.

Meta-themes: Process and Resource Allocation

2008-09-14T18:50:00.000-07:00

ILLUSTRATED: When the regulatory process breaks down, and when resources are concentrated in a few, disasterous financial meltdowns happen. This would not have happened, not as bad anyway, if Gore were president.

Sunday is supposed to be a day of rest. However the New York Times called September 14, 2008 "one of the most dramatic days in Wall Street’s history." Two of the largest investment banks, Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch disappeared. Lehman to liquidation, and Merrill to acquisition. Insurance giant A.I.G. is also in trouble. A week prior, the government took over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, effectively socializing the secondary mortgage market. Today, Alan Greenspan said this is "oh, by far" the worst financial crisis he has seen in his professional career.

Today is the confluence of two pathologies of the Bush Administration: the breakdown of process and the mis-allocation of resources.

First, a breakdown of process. The cult of deregulation continued as the financial sector securitized more and more types of contracts. The lack of regulation ranged from abstract derivates, and derivatives of derivatives, right down to the mortgage brokers who took commissions from clients who obviously could not afford their new homes. A regulatory process is cheaper and more efficient in the long run.
The theme of abrogating process goes to the internal decision making on invading Iraq, the flaunting of the Constitution, and the reneging on international agreements and statecraft.

Secondly, there is a mis-allocation of resources. The irresponsible tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 led to money and credit being concentrated in a few. A few breached securities contracts sent the whole system crashing. Housing is the root of the current crisis. The sub-prime meltdown amounts to a large distribution of wealth, upward.

Bring on the Culture War

2008-09-12T20:22:00.000-07:00

ILLUSTRATED: Take issues that are purely social issues seriously, and discuss them seriously.

Susan Neiman wrote on the Huffington Post about how to win the Culture Wars. Now I know what you're thinking, as I have written here before, all economic policies are indeed values based. But there are some issues that may or may not involve government that are really all about values. And remember, voters vote for the candidate/party that best reflects their value system. That's the root of identity politics, or pandering politics.

My annotation of Neiman's piece:
1. Take "values issues" and "the culture war" seriously for its own sake. Neiman points out that conservatives talk about goodness and working toward such a society. Given the GOP platform those are empty promises, but at least on the campaign trail, voters can fill in the emptiness. Democrats need to talk about why are policies are "good and moral", not just "smart".

2. Don't be afraid to be corny talking about values. My definition of corniness is being honest about your feelings without any pretense. While framing, and metphors, and narratives, are important, Neiman says that non-verbally showing conviction is the best way to communicate to voters what you are about. While a lot of Americans are fooled by the GOP's slick communications apparatus, it doesn't take intellectual sophistication to spot a phony.

3. Use their metaphors against them. Such as life (innocents dying in war) and that even religious figures faces moral dillemas. Therefore talk about the root values discussed in religous text and apply them to public policy.

What I think the Obama-Biden message should be

2008-09-06T03:30:00.001-07:00

ILLUSTRATED: Spell our our domestic agenda, criticize the damage to our force structure, call McCain a flip-flopper.

Three years ago this week I wrote about what I would do in a day for the party if I were Howard Dean. Luckily, he's done most of what I hoped for building the party's GOTV operation. It goes unreported on political talk shows and the like, but it will be worth one or two percentage points on election day.

Now I can pretend to be Robert Gibbs, the communication director for Obama-Biden. Here are the three points I'd make: first and foremost, a concrete economic plan. Work with Bill Clinton who can explain any policy to anyone. Second, the only thing that changes the favorable playing field for Obama is a national security crisis, foreign or domestic. So inoculate ourselves by showing how Bush/McCain has failed us. Lastly, attack what McCain is saying about himself by calling him a flip-flopper.

1. Make the Economy Work for You.

-A $1,000 tax cut for the middle class, let's say it again, a $1,000 tax cut for the middle class. As for the wealthy, they got richer during the Clinton years. We're simply ending their 8 year tax holiday and returning their rate to that during the Clinton years.

-Get off oil. FDR's science project was splitting an atom. JFK's science project was going to the moon. Ours will be getting off oil, not just imports, but oil altogether. It saves the planet, creates new science jobs, and perhaps most importantly, gives us more leverage in foreign affairs.

-Cover all Americans. Let people buy into an affordable health care risk pool. We all know that bulk purchasing is cheaper, so the same goes for insurance pools and prescription drugs.

-End all incentives in the tax code for outsourcing. Enforce fair trade deals. Support workforce development for kids and adults.

2. The Iraq War is broken our military and intelligence services

People can debate how much the Surge helped create the lull in violence in Iraq. But there is no doubt that our force structure is seriously damaged. Also, we had to take a lot of intelligence assets from Afghanistan and elsewhere to send them to this mistaken war in Iraq. Who knows how many terror plots are undetected because of this.

3. John McCain is a political flip-flopper

-Taxes

-His own immigration plan

-Torture

-The type of judges he likes would overturn his campaign finance law.

Extra thoughts:

-Don't delve into the Palin dramas for now. The media is doing that anyway, and it is a major distraction to McCain in getting his message out.

-Wrap up the domestic plan in the language of "reform" to water down the Republicans' patina as reformers.

-Ultimately, illustrate how we'll turn the country around in a few easy steps.

Our convention message, their convention mess

2008-09-05T06:24:00.000-07:00

ILLUSTRATED: Democrats think that government is a public trust for the public interest, federal judges should interpret the constitution as if it is 2009 not 1789, and America is stronger working with the world community, not against it.

First, let me thank conservatives in the media for hyping the supposed Clinton-Obama feud and attracting more t.v. viewers to our convention. It is clear that our party is united in it's agenda, including: getting off oil, covering everyone, and getting our economy working for average people again. The American people know what we stand for.

As for the other side, I like the fact that Sarah Palin is on the cover of supermarket magazines. It is distracting frmo whatever message they had. On Wednesday, Palin painted herself as a populist reformer. The ext next McCain indicted his own party and asked the American people to simply vote for him, and ignore his party's policy and judicial agenda.

As I see it, we can defeat him by pointing out the flip flops of John McCain on taxes, torture, and immigration and claim that he makes sudden changes, but that he does them for political reasons. The "straight talk" patina is phony.

For the more sophisticated crowd, also point out that his judges would probably overturn his campaign finance bill.

Two disturbing ascpects of the Republican worldview

2008-09-05T05:38:00.000-07:00

ILLUSTRATED: The GOP world view includes arbitrary use of government power as well as a stratified society.

As I will write in the next post, this week's Republican Convention was unsuccessful in putting out a consistent message. There was no coherent theme. McCain talked about how great he is, even though he admitted his party screwed up the last eight years. Palin, the speech everyone remembers, talked about reform. Besides the usual rhetoric about cutting taxes and accountability on capitalists, there was no central narrative of the week.

There were however, two very disturbing insights into the Republican value system. Two quotes from the Palin speech caught my attention. Both were major applause lines in the convention hall.

First, the following line about community organizers is getting a lot of backlash in the media and really offended lot of people:

I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a "community organizer," except that you have actual responsibilities.

Now, one would think that a party that praises limited government would praise private community organizing. They certainly like outsourcing public duties and extolled incidences like the logistical help that corporations gave during Hurricane Katrina. But the fact that community organizing was mocked suggests that the GOP really sees a society where social capital is not created among the poor, and those people are kept in their place.

Also, there is more evidence to suggest that the rule of constitutional law is not respected. In a poetic line (assuming you agree with abdicating our Constitution in terror) Palin gave her view that we cannot protect the country and the Constitution:

Al Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America ... he's worried that someone won't read them their rights?

The battle lines are clear, and Democrats must stick to our principles and say them on the campaign trail.

The four stories of a (winning) campaign

2008-08-06T20:19:00.000-07:00

ILLUSTRATED: A campaign communications director must constantly monitor four story lines; what each candidate says about themselves, and each other.

Drew Westen has written yet another great article. I have referenced his analysis of the body politic many times on this blog, such as here.

The two key paragraphs are:

as a candidate, you have to focus first and foremost not on a litany of "issues" but on four stories: the story you tell about yourself, the story your opponent is telling about himself, the story your opponent is telling about you, and the story you are telling about your opponent. Candidates who offer compelling stories in all four quadrants of this "message grid" win, and those who leave any of them to chance generally lose.

And this...

When I work with candidates, one of the first things I do is to spend a day with them walking through their life history and listening for the salient events, the values that mean something to them, and the stories from their lives or from the people they have met in their lifetimes or on the campaign trail that make those values vivid and come alive and illustrate where their heart is, so that when they go on the road, they have a coherent story to tell about who they are, what they stand for, and how their life story connects with the lives and concerns of their constituents.

Campaign '08 as sport

2008-08-02T03:11:00.000-07:00

ILLUSTRATED: Be optimistic about Obama

A couple months ago, I wrote some verbal ammo for the horse race between Obama and McCain. Let me reiterate that last point I made that this is not a fair fight.
Political talk shows are like sports pre-game shows: they talk about the big personalities and strategy. They do that because they get the highest ratings.
A football analogy is just how a football game that is within a field goal going into the last quarter, that game will be decided on the line of scrimmage. In politics, if a race is within the margin of error going into the last week, that race will be decided in volunteer field offices. It's relatively boring to talk about, so the media doesn't focus on it.
As for looking at this race in the last 13 weeks, soccer is a better analogy. Soccer is wide open and improvised, just like resource allocation among swing states. McCain will have $84 Million. Obama might have twice that. So McCain is like a soccer team with 11 players. Obama might have 25. So Obama can play man-to-man defense, AND zone defense, AND his forwards can swamp McCain's defense. Forcing McCain to spend resources anywhere is a tactical victory, since it thins him out.
That said, get out there and canvass.

The point is to Get Off Oil altogether

2008-07-15T10:54:00.000-07:00

ILLUSTRATED: The oil drilling issue is simply about letting the petroleum industry make every last nickel it can. We need to get off oil for the sake of the planet, the economy, and national security.

Human brain tissue is the most important natural resource in solving the energy problem.

This oil drilling issue is similar to the prescription drug benefit. It is a government giveaway to a particular industry that is being sold as a populist measure. The Medicare Part D disaster is simply a giveaway to the drug industry. It violates free market principles in that the government cannot use its scale to bargain for lower prices.

Oil drilling is the same thing. The fuel cost crisis is just an excuse to begin drilling off the coast, something that will not come online for at least five years. In five years, there can be scientific breakthroughs that will transform our economy and market for science jobs. It will save the planet from carbon emissions, and give us a freer hand in global politics.

Is George W. Bush a New Dealer?

2008-07-14T08:11:00.000-07:00

ILLUSTRATED: Reaganism is dead. No one can believe anymore in the unfettered marketplace. Democrats simply need to include these needed financial bailouts as part of our meta-theme of government as a public trust that serves the public interest.

A few months ago I questioned what Ronald Reagan would think of Treasury Secretary Paulson's new regulatory scheme. At that point it seemed that the conservative narrative about government regulation being the enemy of growth seemed severely compromised. But now, this bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is like the second coming of FDR. Continuing with the back to the 30s theme, in the past few days there is a run on the bank IndyMac that just got taken over by federal regulators.

I really don't know what the conservative movement has to say about this. I like to say that conservatives value property rights, efficiency, and order. Liberals value human rights, equity, and justice. We have a Republican administration taking over financial institutions, and it is obvious that people would lose their property otherwise. I don't know how conservatives square this one.

Democrats simply need to maintain that government is there to ensure a fair market that even the little guy doesn't get taken advantage of.

Distribution of Resources

2008-07-05T15:55:00.000-07:00

ILLUSTRATED: The crisis of mass foreclosures and discounted resale is a massive redistribution on wealth…upward. Don’t be afraid of being called a demagogue for talking about the distribution of resources. The GOP wants an economy of get what you can and keep it. Dems want an economy of the public and private sector cycling resources between each other beneficially.

Real property is where most Americans have most of their wealth. Most everyone is losing property value. Of the homes actually foreclosed, many are being repurchased at a bargain by long range investors. This is simply put, a redistribution of wealth.

Think of the economy as an EKG for one’s circulatory system. By 1999, Bill Clinton and the Democrats had the distribution of resources about as equitable as it has every been. Certainly money and opportunity did not get everywhere, but it was as good as it has ever been.

Resources is a good theme to talk about a host of issues. “Investing in resources, distributing resources, and preserving resources.” All of the aforementioned can refer to education and workforce development, Iraq War spending, the environment, and the economy.

Democrats must define "Pro Business"

2008-07-05T15:54:00.000-07:00

ILLUSTRATED: An educated population is a pro-business environment. Some Republican voters can be convinced of that.

There is a split in the Republican ranks (many actually) that we can exploit. It is between those who primary are pro-business growth, and those who are motivated by a hatred of government.

For the last quarter century, the term “business friendly environment” has meant low taxes, and little legal and regulatory accountability. It is clear however, that the metropolitan areas the produce the most wealth are those with the most educated populations. All in spite of the negative side effect of usually having the highest taxes.

Democrats like Mark Warner have successfully made the case that education and infrastructure investments are part and parcel of economic development. There is a batch of Republicans (even if it amounts to 3% of the total electorate) that can be swayed that Democrats are the pro-business party. These Republicans can be pried away from anti-government zealots whose policies crimp the growth of the economy.

Verbal ammo for discussing the Horse race

2008-06-04T19:48:00.000-07:00

ILLUSTRATED: Why Obama wins: 1) the best GOTV operation ever, 2) Obama will appeal in the Rockies, 3) the GOP base is fractured and we are solid, and 4) we have more money and organization.

Myth 1: Obama is shaky in blue states in the Rust Belt. Remember "blue states" means Democratic in 2000 and 2004. Obama has a GOTV operation that far outclasses what Gore and Kerry had. Given the worsening economic conditions and war, I don't think we'll lose any ground. New Hampshire will be the toughest state to keep, but that has gotten more and more Democratic. Don't compare everything to the past (like the talking heads do).

Myth 2: The Mountain Time Zone is RED. Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, and Arizona all have Democratic governors right now. Obama did very well in the primaries and caucuses. Even the recent Montana primary was an open primary that he did very well in. Meaning he is competitive with swing voters out West.

Myth 3: McCain has his base locked down. Ron Paul sounded the call for libertarians which Bob Barr will pick up. Also, Mike Huckabee has played into economic populism among Christian conservatives. For McCain to be in lock step with the Bush Administration on civil liberties and economic policy, he will lose a lot of support.

Myth 4: This is a fair fight. We have the financial and organizational advantage. McCain won the nomination of a collapsing party on a shoestring. He may have violated FEC rules in doing so, having once suggested he would take public financing. He is far behind Obama in growing his organization. He won't have the money to compete where we will compete either. Watch for Obama to make a play in the South and Mountain West. McCain may keep the South, but with less resources, will lose electoral votes in the West.

Survival guide for Obama organizers to integrate Clinton supporters

2008-06-04T13:12:00.000-07:00

ILLUSTRATED: How to heal the Democratic party, and begin a new epoch of party dominance.

I was a Kerry organizer since the summer of 2003. The most difficult of the 15 months was March, 2004. That is when we blended the activists of defeated Democrats after the primary. Here are some tips.

1. First, it is the Obama campaign's responsibility for making this happen with grace and order.
2. You will face some barbed comments and frustration. Basically, for the few difficult people you will face, turn the other cheek once and forgive. Then don't give them any responsibility until they have an affirmative attitude about Obama.
3. Reach out slowly to selective Hillary people
4. Host parties in the homes of Hillary supporters
5. Speak inductively, not about Obama himself, but about the transformation in American politics that HRC's candidacy was a part of. We need to keep it going.
6. When you do talk about Obama, talk about his ability to both inspire and sustain an organization for a Democratic dynasty. This is exciting.
7. Ultimately, the majority of HRC supporters will come over based on the pride you show in your work for Obama

Obama and the realignment of 2008

2008-06-04T13:02:00.000-07:00

ILLUSTRATED: The rare ability of Barack Obama is Inspiration + Organization

I recently spoke with a Democratic Strategist who made an interesting point about Obama. He is a rare candidate who is both a great communicator and a great organizer. I think of great communicators being Lincoln, the Roosevelts, Kennedy, Reagan, and Clinton. In my humble opinion, only Reagan overlaps with great organizers like Washington, Truman, Eisenhower, and Bush the senior.
Barack Obama has the rare ability to inspire a progressive movement, and to organize the institutions to sustain it. It will blend the academy, the media, and the grassroots with the money to maintain power.

An open letter to aspiring Republican Politicians

2008-05-07T14:35:00.000-07:00

ILLUSTRATED: The GOP coalition is dead. Young Republicans need to start from scratch.

Dear Aspiring Republicans,

Whether you are running this year, or in the coming years, you have a great opportunity to remake your party.

Economics

Your first problem is on economics. Going back to its Hamiltonian lineage, your party’s core constituency has been big business and high finance. Currently, your party’s electoral base is in the South, not the center of finance. The problem reared its head on Super Tuesday, 2008, when Mike Huckabee won 5 Southern states talking about economic populism. He campaigned on a shoestring budget, yet his message resonated.

The core values of a conservative are property rights, efficiency, and order. With liberals it’s human rights, equity, and justice. But Mike Huckabee’s policies are rooted in his version of Christianity, and are not based on the values of the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page. Mike Huckabee’s economics are really more liberal than conservative. In short, there is a conflict.

You ought to look for inspiration from conservative mayors like Giuliani, and big state governors in the 1990s. [ahem under Bill Clintons overall cover] there are examples of pro-business development for inner city areas. Also look to Jack Kemp as HUD Secretary for conservative policy for inner cities.

Society

On social policies, if young Republicans don’t change really quickly, you will find yourself on the wrong side of the future. Imagine being on record as against the civil rights laws of the 1960s. That is what being anti-civil unions for gays and anti-choice for reproductive rights would be like. The young generation coming up is very liberal as this research suggests. Now there is Google and YouTube to document and propagate everything you say in an instant.

If you are beginning a political career as a Republican, take a “libertarian” view on social issues. And do it right away. Not only is the country becoming browner, more and more whites have biracial relatives. So the race baiting that your party has done for the last 40 years will backfire.

On immigration, the politics of nativism will not work in the long run. Most wealth is generated in places with lots of immigrants. Thus those places are where politicians will have to raise money, and so those places will have a lot of political power. And as alluded to above, if you bash immigrants at a small fund raising reception, it is likely your are criticizing someone’s spouse or adopted child.

The World

The Iraq debacle, and the underperformance in Afghanistan are on your party for a generation. The younger generation has grown up with war for the last seven years and will not forget it. They also know that terrorism, public health, crime, trade, and environmental concerns are all global. Bravado ultimately leads to weakness. The soft skills of diplomacy keep us safer.

To conclude, doing those things is the only way you can compete. It will also force my party to improve.

Psychological analysis of Campaign '08

2008-05-05T12:04:00.000-07:00

ILLUSTRATED: "Successful candidates are those who set the emotional agenda of the electorate." -Drew Westen

More brilliant analysis from psychologist Drew Westen. This links to other articles by Westen.

The maxim should begin the first strategy meeting of a new campaign.

[Campaigns] are won by candidates who can convince voters, through their words, intonation, body language, and actions that they share their values, that they understand people like them, and that they can inspire the nation or save it from dangers. Policies and plans should be indicators or examples of what candidates care about, which tell voters whether they share their values and would approach the nation's problems in sensible ways.

As stated earlier on this blog, issues should be chosen to reinforce a latent value system. Put yourself on the side of the electorate and the opponent on the other side.

elections are won and lost not primarily on "the issues" but on the values and emotions of the electorate--most importantly, on the "gut feelings" that summarize much of what voters think and feel about a candidate or party. Candidates who win the hearts and minds of the voters are those who can weave together emotionally compelling stories about who they are and who their opponents are and can make people feel what they feel.

On what makes a dangerous Republican.

From the first time I watched Huckabee, he made me nervous, because I disliked most of what he said but I liked him anyway

On Hillary's Clinton's fall after 2007 and resurrection.

Although both tough and agile in her debate performances from the start, she failed to recognize, until her voice cracked in New Hampshire and signaled to voters that there was a person hiding inside that pantsuit, that what she needed more than anything was not another plan for another issue but a story of who she was and what she stood for--and a way to make a dent in the central story the right had branded her with since the early 1990s.

Negative narratives and stories must be nipped in the bud.

Unfortunately, the lore in Democratic campaign circles is that it's best not to address these kinds of attacks directly for fear of fanning the flames. As I argued in the book, however, for reasons that are as much neurological as political, a candidate should never allow the public to form negative associations toward him for any length of time, and certainly not a year, because the more ingrained the associations, the harder to eliminate the feelings they elicit, even when voters no longer consciously believe the original story.

Campaigns must be positive, but also contrast against the opponent.

Successful campaigns are campaigns that both inspire and raise concerns about the opposition. And as I argue in this book, that's exactly what they should do, because an election is a choice, not a referendum, and because positive and negative emotions both drive voting behavior, but in psychologically and neurologically distinct ways.

Campaign communication is ultimately thematic. The specifics should be chosen to tell a greater story.

But if there's a central message in the primary campaigns of 2008, it's that whatever accounts for who became or becomes the nominee on either side has little to do with "the issues." John McCain could certainly speak with more authority on military issues as a veteran than Mitt Romney, but their policy positions were virtually identical. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were about as similar as two candidates could be in their voting records in the Senate. Yet in the Wisconsin primaries, for example, voters who reported in exit polls that the most important issue to them was health care--Hillary Clinton's signature issue--broke for Obama, just as militantly anti-immigrant Republicans routinely voted for McCain.
Issues--the economy, the Iraq War, energy, immigration, health care, whatever they may be--play a major role in elections. But as every presidential election since the advent of modern polling has shown, successful candidates are the ones whose personal stories, principles, ways of talking about their values and concerns for the nation, and personalities capture the imagination of the public (or create enough doubt about their opponent to win despite a less than compelling story of their own, as in the Bush victory of 2004).

Traits of a leader

2008-05-03T22:57:00.000-07:00

ILLUSTRATED: As a political candidate, a family member, or a leader, your communication and behavior should exemplify clarity, empathy, and backbone.

Integrity is usually named as the first important trait in a leader. After all, a leader must be trusted by the followers. I make the case that it is clear communication. A leader must not only be trusted, but must also keep up morale. Telling the whole truth, can be quite demoralizing.

I think the trait that separates the Lincolns and Churchills from the other 95% of "people in leadership positions" is that they can encapsulate the whole truth in a way that is understandable and doesn't hurt morale. A leader with integrity but who is inarticulate, cannot function in dire straits.

Empathy is also crucial, particularly in politics where you don't have total leverage. Empathy does not mean sympathy, or justification, it means the ability to see through the other person's eyes. Great leaders can not only see through another's eyes, but can communicate in their language.

Lastly, is the courage to stay true to the morals and ethics of the cause. Integrity without moral courage is like cash without gold reserves to back it up. ( psst Actually, I am blending two traits here since the leader must buy into the cause first).

Pride or Prejudice ?

2008-04-24T12:51:00.000-07:00

ILLUSTRATED: We must get beyond the stereotyped caricatures the press is boxing the American people into.

At this writing the Democratic nomination is still slogging on. These days the media cavalierly discusses the slicing and dicing of the demography in the voting patterns. There is some voting that is done against Senator Obama and Senator Clinton because of prejudices about who they are. And there are voters who affirmatively want to make history.
It is difficult to reason with either type, because the decision is coming from the heart, albeit a different place in the heart.
As a candidate or a campaign volunteer, just keep telling voters that your candidate cares about them, and will take care of the issues according to their value system.

National Security Debate: Costs and Consequences

2008-04-12T11:50:00.001-07:00

ILLUSTRATED: In 2008 Democrats need to discuss how much we can afford to sustain Iraq vis-a-vis our resources for the Defense Department.

There have been posts here and here on this blog questioning the options and resources available in Iraq. It is becoming clear what George W. Bush is leaving for his successor: a decision on whether to break the military or let the Persian Gulf Region become a political sinkhole.

Democratic federal candidates need to be candid (if you will) and tell the American people this up front. We need to discuss the scenarios and their costs and consequences. From best to worst:
1) There is an oil deal and a recognized national government and local authorities, 2) The territorial integrity of Iraq is maintained, but more factional warfare, 3) A full bloodbath with outside countries invading.

It is totally naive to suggest that the United States will not have an interest in what happens, and in fact it is possible that the overall cost of staying may be cheaper in the long run (let's say a 10 year frame of reference).

That brings us to the other side of the equation...

The military is hollowing out. We are lowering our standards for recruits, straining the troops and families we have, destroying our equipment, and hurting our diplomatic credibility.
It will cost a lot to replenish this without a draft. There are limitations on future revenues (taxes and Treasury bonds) as well as huge domestic priorities.

There are indeed other threats in the world, so the force needed to defend against those must be modeled and compared against the costs of the Iraq scenarios in a dynamic analysis.

Democrats must communicate this now on the campaign trail since it is clearly the fault of the GOP. Come January, this is our problem.

The truth about the Surge

2008-04-01T13:18:00.000-07:00

ILLUSTRATED: The violence of late March, 2008 shows that the Surge has not changed the political fundamentals in Iraq. McCain's main argument has been discredited.

As I have said many times on this blog, the Surge has been well executed by General Petraeus and his troops. It has had a cosmetic effect on American politics, but has had no fundamental effect on Iraqi politics.
There was a lot of violence in Basra, the gateway to Iraq's oil industry. It was ended by Muqtada al-Sadr voluntarily, without giving up arms. Thus, Iraq is a powder keg waiting to explode. The surge has really been a band-aid, a temporary lull.
When Democratic campaign workers knock on doors, we need to make the case that the surge has not changed anything. McCain is wrong, he does not stand for a change in policy. Democrats do.

What would Reagan think of Henry Paulson?

2008-04-01T13:08:00.001-07:00

ILLUSTRATED: The GOP has just forfeited a generation's worth of political leverage.

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson has just unveiled a new plan to regulate the financial industry. It is uncertain how much of it will become law and which president will sign the bill.
It will be some time before we know how many real regulatory changes are actually in place here, or if it is just cosmetic. The merits will be discussed later, but the political implications are huge. The GOP has ceded the fact that the economy needs to be regulated for its own benefit. Gone is Reagan's mantra that "government is not the solution to the problem, government is the problem."
For the next generation, Democrats should not be afraid of being labeled anti-business. We should say "regulating business is in the public interest, and in the interest of commerce."

A National Security Vision for Democrats

2008-03-27T21:10:00.001-07:00

ILLUSTRATED: We must align strategy for hard power with soft power.

Over a year ago I posted A Democratic National Security Platform for 2008. However it was a point-by-point plan for government institutions. It was not an idea encapsulated in a slogan. Two recent articles, one by Joseph Nye and an op-ed by General Zini and Admiral Smith stress that hard power strategy and soft power must be aligned. In other words, the next White House must coordinate soldiers, diplomats, and spies one the one hand, with foreign aid, development, and exchanges in culture and education. Hard and soft power coordination.

The national security business will be brisk in the 21st Century. With the possible exception of East Asia, most American military activity will be in the greater Middle East, and at a lower intensity in Sub-Saharan Africa. The roots of these problems cannot be solved with hard power. Hard power might only keep it in check, preventing it from threatening our interests.

There must be an effort to project our arts and culture, survival aid, economic investment, and efforts to build an education system on these sub-continents.

Wall Street Welfare and Wall Street Taxes

2008-03-20T10:15:00.000-07:00

ILLUSTRATED: It is essential that Democrats explain how the coming bailout is an indictment on conservative ideology.

Unfettered markets, unfettered property rights, an unfettered right to contract, and limited legal and regulatory accountability are the keystone ideas in the Republican economic platform. However in our current crisis, each idea must be compromised in order to save capitalism from itself.

Some points that Democrats met get accross:
-These cuts in the Federal Funds rates are a backdoor bailout for banks. Interest rates for consumers, from mortgages to credit cards are not coming down as fast.
-Lax regulation and loosening of Depression Era laws are ending up costing the economy more in the long run. History does repeat itself, so we must learn its lessons.
-Strong ethical standards (ahem, "regulations") must be put in for anyone who advises people with money. Democrats ceratinly want as many homeowners as possible, but people must be advised on how to invest and what they can afford.
-Interest rates are Wall Street's tax. They are going up. The dollar will go down so imported oil prices will go up.
-Worst of all is the coming taxpayer bailout to help the executives who made these mistakes. Wall Street Welfare is not just a hypocritical oxymoron, it goes to show that Republicans truly value some people over others. Their policies benefit those in position to control capital for its own sake. Our policies are designed to have optimized resource allocation in the economy and give everyone a chance to succeed.

Bush's legacy on Iraq

2008-03-20T09:39:00.000-07:00

ILLUSTRATED: Bush will run down the military in order to save his personal legacy on Iraq. We must call him on it.

The LA Times has a succinct article on how there is a chasm between the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the commanders in Iraq on troop levels. Essentially the JCS which advises the political leadership on long term military/defense policy sees the forces hollowing out. The commanders in Iraq want to stanch the violence. The key paragraphs are these:

In part, the disagreements between Petraeus and the Joint Chiefs -- and in particular their chairman, Navy Adm. Michael G. Mullen -- are a function of their differing responsibilities. Petraeus' main task is to win the war in Iraq. Mullen and the Joint Chiefs have the primary responsibility of ensuring the long-term strength of the military and preparing for contingencies.
But the differences are exacerbated by the circumstances under which the men were chosen for their jobs. Bush picked Petraeus because he had new strategies for Iraq. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates tapped Mullen because of his deep concern for the health of the military.

Basically, I predict that Bush will care about his personal legacy more than the military itself. The key for him and John McCain is to keep the level of violence down until the election and Inaguration. They do not care so much about an oil deal or a political constitution.

We must call them on it.

Compete on quality or cost?

2008-03-10T04:53:00.000-07:00

ILLUSTRATED: Democrats can package our platform as making the American economy competitive on quality.

The simple fact of economic globalization is that America cannot compete on cost in the long run. We may start an industry, but other countries will undercut us with downscale models and improve quality over time. America must compete on quality. The Republican party is totally out of position.
Fundamentally, Republicans say "cut taxes and accountability on the 3% who control capital, and they will grow the economy and benefit all." An unreconstructed liberal says " increase the budget and authority of the 3% that run our public institutions and they will allay all societal ills." Both lines are now discredited with the voters. Democrats can now own the issue of being pro-economic growth.
When it comes to supporting public education, fiscal sanity, the environment, the rule of law, good foreign relations, and universal health care, it all leads to a high value society. That is a "pro-business" policy.
The evidence is clear: economic growth is not highest where taxes are lowest. Economic growth is where the most educated people are.

So you want to be a candidate?

2008-03-10T04:26:00.000-07:00

ILLUSTRATED: Some timeless fundamentals on campaigning.

All of these points have been made before on this blog, but then again, campaign communication is about repetition. I wrote recently that there are timeless principles of campaigning, as well as continual innovation that must be kept up with. As for the former, this advise has always been, and will always be pertinent.

There are three general areas of focus: Mobilization, Money, and Message. If you prefer the letter "w" then work, worth, and words. Donnie Fowler says bodies, money, ideas. All the same three concepts.

Mobilization: First, your campaign will only be as good as the campaign manager's organizational skills, and intellectual bandwidth. The campaign management team should be above all, good managers. Pay the required salary for good talent. Second, the locus of power and influence should be with the organic management team, not with consultants. Thirdly, grow the campaign in ever enlarging circles, reaching out to different constituencies.

Money: Ask for it early and often. Come to grips early on that fundraising is the most important thing until about 90 days before voting. You must schedule call time every day, when calling, ask for a decent number. Let people know why it is important to them, to you, to the cause. Think of a psychological hook to get people to give. It is largely emotional.

Message: First, know that political communication is the translation of law and policy prose into campaign poetry that resonates with people's values. Richard Wirthlin, Reagan's aide, said that issues are picked because of the latent values behind them. The massage should be setting a narrative that stakes your candidacy on the side of the people's values.
Second, answer the following four questions- Why are you running? What is your agenda? Why you are qualified? Why you can win. Answering those gives you a stump speech.The second question is the meat and potatoes, but the first answer wins the election.
Third, keep it clear, concise, contrasting, and consistent. Dick Nixon said that when you are bored sick of your own speech, is when it sinks in with the public.
Lastly, remember that every speech,commercial, mailing, and script for volunteers should be focused on the message. Try and make every day's headlines focused on that message.

New Bargain

2008-03-02T22:44:00.000-08:00

ILLUSTRATED: "The New Bargain" is a way to present our domestic program in a way that is pro-business

At this writing, both Senator Obama and Senator Clinton are still both slugging it out for our nomination. They are fundamentally the same on most domestic issues, as are most of our federal candidates, be they liberal or moderate. A way to encapsulate our program is to consider it a collective bargain with the American people. The Labor Movement has changed as the economy has changes. Companies will be slimmer, and people will not only move jobs, but move careers several times.
Without lifetime union protections, the government should be there to provide health care and assist with education and training.
Now, let's be careful and not fall into the trap of becoming the boring "human resources" party. In a post last summer, I commented on how we are the "HR Department" on domestic issues, and the "supply sergeant party" on defense issues.
The New Bargain must be presented in a dynamic way, that fosters business growth. Basically, by centralizing health insurance, we are freeing people to become free agents and not dependent on employers. With education/training we are promoting a talented workforce, and thus making America a pro-business environment.

Jokes about our opponents

2008-02-13T19:24:00.000-08:00

ILLUSTRATED: Our party is united with an agenda and a coalition. We are simply choosing a leader.

I have not written a post in a while as our party is having a wonderful primary season that is galvanizing our voters and captivating the entire world. I had been participating with one campaign, but went back to neutrality. Our party is largely unified on an agenda, an agenda that this blog helps articulate in simple terms. We are, however, sorting out who are next leader will be.
In the meantime, here is a humorous post with witticisms all Democrats need. These sassy lines however are not an affirmative message, only comebacks to Republicans. Our affirmative message is basically: "Government is a trust for the public interest; judges should interpret the Constitution as if it is 2008 and not 1789; and America is strongest working with the world community, not against it."
Here is the link...

Romney's 3 word telegraph

2008-02-07T17:11:00.000-08:00

ILLUSTRATED: I think the GOP just outlined their line of attack for 2008

Mitt Romney used the phrase "surrender to terror" today in describing the Democratic party on Iraq and Al-Queda. Let's break that down:

-George Orwell would point out that "Surrender to terror" is grammatically incorrect (as Romney asserts it) because it is intellectually dishonest. "Terror" is an emotion, not a group. The Republicans want to change our constitution due to fear, and that is surrendering to emotion. It means you don't have faith in the document or the people, and that is the biggest victory for terrorists.

-A "surrender to terror" is not what an Iraqi pullout is. It is reallocating resources and realigning our course in the assault on terrorists. Bush took us off course, now Afghanistan and our own borders are shaky.

-Remember, I suspect McCain may make Iraq a moral decision, which it is. He will portray us as causing a civil war. We must make it clear that if the "surge is working" the Iraqi people must now assume responsibility for creating a new political system. We cannot afford to stay, if we knew the true costs, we would never have invaded in the first place. Having American soldiers die in a political conflict they cannot solve is immoral.

Statistics to back you up

2008-01-26T12:41:00.000-08:00

ILLUSTRATED: Here is a collection of stats, with citations, to back up your claims about the failure of Republican policies.

The theme that jumps out at me is "Resources". Liberals (who care about human rights and equity) already know that the distribution of resources is way off kilter. To conservatives (who care about property rights and efficiency) tell them that the portfolio mix is off. More people need money to make the economy work properly, too few people are wasting too much capital that they could never spend.
The link.

THE ECONOMY	JANUARY 20, 2001	TODAY UNDER BUSH
REAL GDP GROWTH¹	4.09% Over Prior 8 Years	2.65% Over Prior 7 Years
NATIONAL DEBT²	$5.7 Trillion	$9.2 Trillion
BUDGET DEFICIT/SURPLUS³	$431 Billion Surplus over the Previous Three Budget Years	$734 Billion Deficit over the Previous Three Budget Years
NEW PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS CREATED⁴	1.76 Million Jobs Per Year Over Previous 8 Years	369,000 Jobs Per Year Over Previous 7 Years
AMERICANS IN POVERTY ⁵	31.6 Million	36.5 Million
QUALITY OF LIFE	JANUARY 20, 2001	TODAY UNDER BUSH
AMERICANS UNINSURED & CHANGE IN UNINSURED LEVEL⁶	38 Million Uninsured 4.5 Million Less in 2 Years	47 Million Uninsured 8.5 Million More in 6 Years
ANNUAL TOTAL PREMIUM COST⁷	$6,230 for Family Premium	$12,106 for Family Premium
MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME & CHANGE IN MEDIAN INCOME⁸	$49,163 $6,000 Increase in 8 Years	$48,023 $1,100 Decrease in 6 Years
PRICE OF GAS⁹	$1.39/Gallon	$3.07/Gallon
COST OF COLLEGE¹⁰	$3,164 per year	$5,192 per year
PERSONAL SAVINGS RATE¹¹	+2.3%	-0.5%
CONSUMER CREDIT DEBT¹²	$7.65 Trillion	$12.8 Trillion
UNITED STATES & THE WORLD	JANUARY 20, 2001	TODAY UNDER BUSH
U.S. TRADE DEFICIT¹³	$380 Billion	$759 Billion
STRENGTH OF U.S. DOLLAR¹⁴	1.07 Euros per Dollar	0.68 Euros Per Dollar
COMBAT READINESS¹⁵	All Active Duty Army Divisions Were Rated At The Highest Readiness Levels	Not A Single Active Duty Or Reserve Brigade In The U.S. Considered “Fully Combat Ready.”
FOREIGN OIL DEPENDENCY¹⁶	52.75% of U.S. Liquid Fuel Consumption is Imported	60.38% of U.S. Liquid Fuel Consumption is Imported
VIEW OF AMERICA ABROAD¹⁷ PEW POLL OF TEN NATIONS	58.3% Viewed America Favorably	39.2% Viewed America Favorably
GREAT BRITAIN’S VIEW OF U.S.	83% Favorable	56% Favorable
INDONESIA’S VIEW OF U.S.	75% Favorable	30% Favorable
TURKEY’S VIEW OF U.S.	52% Favorable	12% Favorable
GERMANY’S VIEW OF U.S.	78% Favorable	37% Favorable

¹ Bureau of Economic Analysis

² Department of Treasury

³ Congressional Budget Office

⁴ Bureau of Labor Statistics

⁵ United States Census Bureau

⁶ United States Census Bureau

⁷ Kaiser Study of Employer Health Care Benefits

⁸ United States Census Bureau

⁹ Energy Information Administration

¹⁰ Higher Education Coordinating Board of Washington State

¹¹ Bureau of Economic Analysis

¹² Insurance Information Institute

¹³ United States Census Bureau

¹⁴ OANDA.com: The Currency Website

¹⁵ Speaker of the House Fact Sheet, 11/29/07

¹⁶ Energy Information Administration

¹⁷ Testimony of Andrew Kohut; President, Pew Research Center; 3/17/07

How much?/Then what?

2008-01-20T20:58:00.000-08:00

ILLUSTRATED: What every American citizen should be asking every Presidential, Senatorial, and Congressional candidate they meet.

As the name suggests, most posts on this blog tell Democrats how to communicate. However this entry is for all American citizens regarding how they should be challenging federal candidates about Iraq. This article in the New York Times sums up the tremendous moral, financial, and policy decisions facing the government one year from now.

For politicians who claim “get out now”: ask then what? What moral obligation do we owe the Iraqi people, and what is the Middle East strategy if Iraq is chaotic? This interview transcript from Mother Jones (a pretty liberal magazine) simply won't do for Democratic politicians.

For politicians who claim “stick it out”: ask how much? How much American blood and treasure will be lost? Where will we get the funds and how will you rebuild the Army? GOP politicians like John McCain talk about the long term but have no real proposal to pay for it, given the fiscal and monetary situation.

Mesopotamian Oil Trust

2008-01-18T12:40:00.000-08:00

ILLUSTRATED- Democrats have their model in discussing Iraq's future and why we can (mostly) get out.

Mowaffak al-Rubaie, Iraq's National Security Adviser has just given all Democrats a simple blueprint for an Iraq, that only Iraq politicians can forge for themselves. American soldiers, under General Petraeus, have done all they can to secure the country.
As stated before on this blog, Security + Oil$ = Political Deal. A viable polity needs security and an economy. American's need to help keep its territorial integrity and fight terrorists. Iraq's need to get control of their oil and make a deal themselves.
Iraq's federal government should mostly be an oil trust executor, with small ministries for defense, finance, and diplomacy. Everything else left to the provinces. I think conservatives are supposed to like that kind of political model. Also tell them this is forced responsibility like welfare reform.

Framing the Debate for '08

2008-01-15T22:55:00.000-08:00

ILLUSTRATED: If we nail down these four lenses in the public's perception, we will win the White House and strengthen control of Capitol Hill.

Iraq: Presidents set policies, not generals. Petraeus is great at executing strategy, but the overall policy is a failing one. Democrats will have a new policy on Day 1.

Terrorism: You can protect the country and the Constitution. Compromising our Constitution is the biggest capitulation of all to the terrorists.

Economy: (At this writing I do not know whether the GDP will contract for two quarters aka "recession") No matter what the macro numbers say, wealth is going to a few people who will use it for their own interests. Most Americans are worse off than they were four years ago.
Government is for the public interest, not an enemy of commerce or property rights. Government is to assure that our resources are allocated in a way for the country to grow in the future, now they are out of whack.

Immigration: Democrats support the rule of law and due process. We are strengthened by immigration and we will have a fair process.

Policy > Strategy > Operations > Tactics

2008-01-15T22:28:00.000-08:00

ILLUSTRATED: The civilian political leadership sets policy, not generals

Here what Democrats need to say: "General Petraeus has done a great job executing a security strategy. However Bush's policy is a failure. Presidents set policy and (our nominee) will set a new policy...It will be to disengage, bring most troops home, a few left to fight terrorists, and send a few to beef up Afghanistan."

A week or so after the November '06 elections, I saw a leading political reporter speak. He said that by the turn of 2008, all major Republican candidates would be against the war. WRONG. Tonight was the Michigan Republican Primary, the third different winner after as many serious contests. The exit polls showed support for the war among the voters. Given that there is no front runner, we can expect that it will be difficult for the eventual GOP winner to change positions before the fall.

Basically our nominee, will be calling for a fast reduction of the vast majority of troops. Leaving a couple of divisions to fight terrorists and maintain the territorial integrity of Iraq. I suspect the GOP nominee will do as Bush does and parrot whatever General Petraeus calls for.

France's World War I Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau said that "war is too important to be left to the generals". This does not mean that the President and Secretary of Defense need to pick targets and schedule supply convoys. It does mean that they are to set policy.

Several times on this blog I have commended General Petraeus for doing a yeoman's job at counterinsurgency and tamping down the violence. But he is doing what good generals do: execute strategy. As an air force cadet, I learned the three levels of war are strategic, operational, and tactical. The abstraction beyond strategic is policymaking. President and Cabinet secretaries are supposed to set policy in the Middle East and the military's force structure.

Democrats need to start hammering this home so the population gets it.

Under reported issues in the campaign

2008-01-10T22:59:00.000-08:00

ILLUSTRATED: Here are some issues over the horizon that will need to be discussed.

Iraq: It is clear that the next president will have a tremendous moral decision very early on: the decision to remove the US Army from the chaos we helped create. On the other hand, if we were to stay, there ought to be a massive tax increase to offset other foreign and domestic policies. We cannot keep borrowing from foreigners as the dollar is tanking. The media ought to be discussing this since it will bedevil the next president.

The success of the surge is a misnomer. The surge (which by definition is temporary, ending in the spring) has been brilliantly executed to reduce violence. However we will lose critical mass in the spring and the violence will flare up. There has been no oil revenue deal thus no political deal in this Pax Iraq time frame. For the "get out now crowd" they must answer "then what?" For the "we need to stick it out" crowd, they need to answer "how much?"

Domestic Intelligence: A lot of talk, if not action, has been about emergency response and integrating agencies at each level of government. That is after a terror attack. What about before an attack? The FBI is creating a National Security Branch, after they have finally realized that detective work and intelligence gathering are different disciplines. The NYPD and the LAPD are way ahead of the rest of the country in gathering intelligence at the local level. I think an issue for Democrats is to support states in coordinating all intelligence gathering in their states. Not all cities have the size to specialize in something so sophisticated. Having oversight would also help secure civil liberties.

Capping Carbon Emissions: We need to do this. Period. A discussion has to be held regarding the massive job dislocations that will happen.

Long term care: This is not covered by Medicare. It's doubtful that there could ever be an employer based system since these are usually retirees. The government may have to help organize an economical way to care for the elderly who are living longer. To win over conservatives, mention how it is economically efficient to promote healthy communities, and not have people drain down their own nest eggs.

Medical privacy: By the end of the next president's first term, we will be able to buy our genetic map for $1,000, so I was told by a molecular biologist. This is helpful for personalizing our own care, but very harmful if insurance companies or employers got their hands on it. Even conservatives would support government protections for this, from corporate power.

Education: We are simply not producing enough from our education system. If the system was good enough, we would not need H1B visas. The federal government has the resources to raise the teaching profession. The federal government may not be the most efficient at administering schools, but it's money can alter the job market for young people to enter teaching.

Money and Grassroots

2008-01-09T17:35:00.000-08:00

ILLUSTRATED: Face it, extensive grassroots organizing costs money

This article is being written in the middle of a great primary season in both parties. Thus this is being written without knowing how this nomination fight will play out.
Last night was the New Hampshire Primary, and most campaigns are running out of money. There are still some dates this month with only one state contest, and thus there still will be some retail politics from the candidates and campaigns that are intensive on grassroots organizing. Voters in these states like Michigan, Nevada, and South Carolina will want the same attention from candidates and volunteers that Iowa and New Hampshire had.
But is costs money.

Let us remember that grassroots organizing is a tactic, like tv commercials, and direct mailers. "Grassroots" has become used as a metaphor for ideological, demonstrative activists. Those types of activists, particularly on the political Left, often rail against the influence of money in politics over people power.

But at the end of the day, the type of activity costs money. This will become obvious as the nomination plays out.

Iowa ground game

2007-12-29T12:29:00.000-08:00

ILLUSTRATED: Thursday's Iowa Caucus could prove the effectiveness of modern GOTV.

An excellent NYT article examines modern GOTV efforts and techniques used to gear up for Iowa. The Obama and Clinton campaigns are taking a page from what Bush/GOP did in Ohio in the fall of 2004. Namely, using sophisticated demographic information from consumer data bases, and targeting people of a profile who will support them. Edwards is running a more traditional campaign focused on regular voters. (There is a subtext about private campaign finance since only Clinton and Obama can afford to do this)

This will be a case study in the effectiveness of modern GOTV, because all three are tied at about 29%. So if two are going to pedal to the metal to find their base, and one is not, this will be a good experiment. Thursday night look for the ENTRANCE polls which poll people walking into the caucus rooms.

Democracy is Beautiful

2007-12-27T21:41:00.000-08:00

ILLUSTRATED: Tell voters it is their moral duty to vote. Democracy is beautiful, all must partake.

This blog is mainly about telling Democrats how to articulate our policies in plain English. I've never written about the most basic closing argument. Go vote!The percentage of people who show up is disgraceful.

I have heard many inspirational stories, that I try to tell to others. What works for me is relaying what a professor once told me. She is white but lived in the South in a precinct with a lot of African Americans. On election day, the elderly African Americans would dress up like they are going to church...it was that important to them.

Having done some poll watching, I can tell you that watching Americans line up to vote is a beautiful thing.

Almost as beautiful as those who literally fight for democracy....

Avoiding the ignorance of arrogance

2007-12-25T11:50:00.000-08:00

ILLUSTRATED: Modern campaigns must keep up with modern techniques and technology. Beware of giving all of the power in the campaigns to people, simply because they won in the past.

Two years ago I wrote of the coming age of the political entrepreneur. These are well connected activists who are good at organizing, writing, and fundraising. They are essential to modern campaigns. In the NYT's edition on Christmas '07, there is an article on how Democratic presidential candidates are reining in the payouts to old-school media consultants. In the last two paragraphs, Joe Trippi (Dean '04, Edwards '08) writes that soon, people experienced in modern netroots organizing will be running major campaigns.

2008 campaigns still have a lot of fundraisers, consultants, and managers who came of age before 2004, when blogs and the Internet became critical. Campaigns these days ought to beware of stacking the top jobs with people simply because they have a "track record". I have found that they often have a pack mentality that is stuck in the past.

Let me be clear that there are fundamentals that are timeles s. But there is a tightrope to be walked between "learning the lessons of history so as to not repeat the mistakes" and "not being the general who fights the last war".

Ideas and Values

2007-12-17T18:52:00.000-08:00

ILLUSTRATED: Coalitions are about ideas based on shared values. Huckabee and Paul are exposing the hypocrisy in the GOP coalition.

It occurred me today that the biggest threat to the Nixon-Reagan coalition are the candidacies of Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul. I say this for the following reasons:

-First, coalitions are held together by ideas. Huckabee and Paul are as genuine as politicians come, and sincerely believe in their ideas. Huckabee is a conservative populist, and that includes basic Christian tenets of serving the poor and stewardship of the environment. Paul believes in less government, which includes less investigative power. Also it would include abolishing the unitary executive theory pushed by Bush/Cheney that puts the executive branch above the other two branches.

-Second, Paul will have the money to propagate his message across the country. That will reinvigorate small government libertarians in the party. Huckabee may or may not ever have Paul's money but given his new status as a first tier candidate, can propagate his Christian value system (which is very similar to our party on taking care of people's needs and giving opportunity and dignity to all) across the country.

-With these old constituencies spoken to, they will become aroused. And in 2008 and beyond, it will be difficult for the GOP to hold them together.

Going back to Alexander Hamilton, the GOP's main focus the interests of big business. They coalesced with Christian Conservatives in the 1970s to form a majority. But now corporate welfare, abuse of power, and the widening gap in opportunity and condition in America is tearing that coalition apart.

Be heartened, that our presidential and congressional candidates are fundamentally the same on core values.

2008 issues

2007-12-12T19:36:00.000-08:00

ILLUSTRATED: Iraq: "responsible draw down", Economy: "fiscal responsibility, invest in people", Immigration: "fair legal process, immigration is good".

At this writing in mid-December 2007 I see Iraq and the Economy as the two key issues, with immigration being the one issue hot enough for the GOP to distract the people.

Iraq: For the previous few months, Iraq has not been in the news much. Violence has gone down but we are not any closer to an oil revenue sharing deal, thus we are no closer to a political deal. In the spring, when we run out of manpower for the surge, the violence will go back up and several civil wars will flare up again. A bloodbath in Iraq will be the backdrop of the 2008 election. Tie Iraq and the economy together by mentioning that saving war spending will help the economy here.

Economy: I bet against a contracting of the GDP in the aggregate, but clearly most Americans are worse off than they were 4 years ago. So it will feel like a recession, even if business pundits on TV tell us otherwise. We need to stress fiscal responsibility and investing in people.

Immigration: This blends trade economics, with race, with national identity, with national security, with the rule of law. It may not be all, but that's a whole lot of hot button issues. The reality is the vast majority of the American people want physical border protection, and think there are far too many illegal immigrants.
First, we need to stress legal process. The main theme of what Bush/Cheney has done wrong from foreign policy to presidential appointments is that they have eschewed process and done what they have wanted. Say Democrats stand for fair legal process.
Secondly, keep immigration positive. Immigrants bring vibrancy to the economy and culture wherever they go.

Show love for America, not hate for Republicans

2007-11-20T20:13:00.000-08:00

ILLUSTRATED: Voters like candidates to promote America and their place in it.

There is a good line in The Godfather III where Al Pacino says "don't hate your enemy, it clouds your judgment." Very true with the electoral opposition too. Furthermore, voters don't like it.

This holiday season is a time when we actually engage in long conversations with relatives and friends. We can reflect on things going on in the world. When promoting the Democratic Party, keep the focus on the positive things we'll do for the country and what we stand for:
"Governing in the public interest, interpreting the Constitution for 2008 not 1789, and strengthening America by working with the world community." We need to show that supporting the public interest is patriotic.

Frameworks for planning a political campaign

2007-11-12T10:51:00.001-08:00

ILLUSTRATED: Here are how some experienced people have organized campaigns.

Venture capitalists say that the difference between a start-up that succeeds and one that fails is not the business plan (there are lots of smart business plans). The key is having a leadership team that keeps the company focused. Actually the hard part, recruiting the team, is up to the candidate and campaign chair. But here are some business plans to stick on the wall of the campaign office's meeting room.

The business plans are the Tables of Contents from various books on campaigns. From these links, click on the "Table of Contents". It is a good way to conceptualize what you need to do.

Find your favorite, or combine the best parts of several, and stick it on the wall. The execute the plan.

BTW, my seven phases of a campaign are in this previous post.

The Campaign Manager

How to Win a Local Election

Newcomers guide to winning local elections

Running for office

Winning Elections

Politics the Wellstone Way

Get Out the Vote

Campaigning to Win

E-Day Minus 363

2007-11-07T20:29:00.000-08:00

ILLUSTRATED- Less than a year from the election, there are a few things about campaigns that conservatives and Republicans seem to understand better than Democrats.

National Security Issue- A lot of this is style. Voters want to know that if we are hit again, or are threatened with an immediate hit, a Democratic President will strike hard, from one end of the Earth to the other. Then, and only then, with that threshold is met will the American people listen to our plan for the world and reshaping the military. That comes from stage presence, and elocution. Yes, you must act like a drama coach as a political consultant.

Judiciary- I am now realizing how sophisticated conservative voters are about courts. We need to communicate that Jurists are the key to setting the parameters of governance. The legacy of judicial appointments is just as important as who is elected president.

Role of government- To serve the public interest. Taxes are our dues as citizens.

How to campaign- Run a campaign like a business. Both the operational and marketing sides. That should be the tone set by a campaign manager. It is not a place for volunteers to find their identity, nor a place for consultants to promote their own careers.

Describing this economy

2007-11-07T20:18:00.000-08:00

ILLUSTRATED: The key to understanding the mixed economic news is that we are becoming an hourglass society with the economy working for 20% on top, and failing most people.

I see these economic conservatives on cable business channels talking about how the great economy is the untold story. Well, these people who work on Wall Street and interact with CEOs and consultants all day get a warped view.

Here is some debunking-

-The deficit is shrinking. There is a lot of tax revenue because so much wealth is concentrated at the top. It will change in 2011, the 65th anniversary of the Baby Boom. There will need to be strategic tax increases.

-Job growth is strong. A lot of these jobs are part time, or are not jobs to further one's career.

-Inflation is in check. That cuts both ways since it could suggest low growth at the bottom of the economic scale. In any event, health, oil, and education costs are soaring, and that hurts the poor and middle class disproportionately more.

-On housing. For lenders, a bad loan is a tax write-off. For borrowers, particularly homes, a bad loan means losing a house. And terrible credit, too bad the GOP made bankruptcy harsher.

Lastly, any economic statistic that conservatives say, needs to be countered with the fact that the dollar has lost 34% of its value since Bush took office.

Vote the Court

2007-11-07T20:05:00.000-08:00

ILLUSTRATED: Rudy Giuliani is doing surprisingly well in polls since conservatives know that he will appoint conservative judges.

I said it before, the key to major social issues and policy issues is the stamp of approval from the judiciary. Conservative voters are becoming convinced that Giuliani would appoint conservative judges. Here are two videos 1 and 2 that articulate this.
When Giuliani ran in New York City, he ran saying "I'm pro-choice". OK fine, that's what voters in NYC want to hear. But conservative voters know that the key to ending a woman's right to choose is not who is president, but who the president appoints to the court.
Democrats must describe the importance of the court and make it clear: "we will appoint judges who interpret the constitution as if it is 2009, not 1789."

Noun + Verb + Issue

2007-11-04T08:20:00.000-08:00

ILLUSTRATED: Message discipline is tough to beat. Nuance must be explained in metaphors and analogies, and must be given with confidence.

Frank Rich of the New York Times wrote an article describing how Iran and other national security issues are shaping up to frame this election. It is a warning to Democrats that voters like a leader who appears confident in their decision/position,...even if it turns out to be a wrong decision. Our candidates are more intellectually honest than GOP candidates, so true to character, our candidates speak in the nuance that is the real world. But it puts us at a disadvantage in marketing.
Rich quotes Joe Biden's line from last week's debate:

Mr. Biden got a well-deserved laugh Tuesday night when he said there are only three things in a Giuliani sentence: “a noun and a verb and 9/11.” But a year from now, after the public has been worn down by so many months more of effective White House propaganda, “America’s mayor” (or any of his similarly bellicose Republican rivals) will be offering voters the clearest possible choice, however perilous, about America’s future in the world.

I've got to say, Giuliani is doing an effective job of branding himself. I do not predict Giuliani will win the nomination, but he is a good example to novice political candidates about message discipline.

Rich is warning Democrats that they must make it clear to the American people what they stand for. The people need to stand with us, not fall for the Republicans again.

$1,000,000 Proposition for Democratic Campaigns

2007-10-12T03:55:00.001-07:00

ILLUSTRATED: $2,000 x 5 months x 100 campaign offices = $1,000,000 (and 300 electoral votes guaranteed!)

I started this blog because I think the weakest link in the Democratic machine is our ability to speak our agenda in a simple way that resonates with people. But I also care a lot about party building. Two years ago I wrote about if I was DNC Chair for a day.

I have been to many campaign offices in at least three states. What strikes me is how there is a lack of management in these offices, by all accounts, Republican field offices are better run. I hate to say it.

The going rate for a campaign manager/field office director is about $2,000-$2,500 per month. Now there are some talented people who do work for that, especially at the presidential level. But imagine the level of management talent you would get for $4,000 - $4,500 per month. You could induce professional program managers from industry to do jobs that are mostly...program management. A $2,000 raise in 100 strategic offices in the 5 months before the would dramatically improve the performance and organization of Democratic GOTV operations. These days for a presidential candidate, $1,000,000 is a drop in the bucket.

For a second drop in the bucket, you could focus on the same 100 precincts, pay 10 students, $10 per hour, to work 100 hours each. That's 1,000 person-hours in each precinct. Think of the number of registrations and vote switches that could happen. I would say two per hour equaling 200,000 more votes in these key precincts.

Blackwater, Diebold and the privatization of governance

2007-10-09T18:27:00.000-07:00

ILLUSTRATED: Scandals with government contractors play into our themes of good government and governing in the public interest. Functions that are inherently governmental, need to be controlled by public officials, not private contractors.

After Hurricane Katrina, several stories appeared of large companies stepping up with a tremendous logistical effort. The civilian government seemingly was not as coordinated to help its own people, therefore it had to be supplemented by corporate generosity. That is only one example of the problem.

Government can contract some functions to private businesses. Food services, certain administrative functions, as well as certain type of consulting expertise. However, with main line activities, the executive decisions need to be done by people who are accountable to the public.

Force protection in a war zone, and counting votes are perfect examples on inherently government activities that need to be run by people organically in government agencies. This Blackwater mass killing is a tragedy. But since the Army is too small, military functions are sent to a business that is outside any legal apparatus or status of forces agreement. This type of incident was bound to happen without a proper accounting.

As for voting, finally there is a backlash against Diebold voting machines, and their secret software. One company had too much control over our election system.

The list goes on and on: Vouchers for schools, private prisons, etc. The GOP is hurting the democracy, because if more of these functions are run by companies, the voting public loses power.

Democrats need to use these examples to tie into a central theme that government needs to work in the public interest. For those weary of big government, turn it around and let them know that these important functions being run by "people accountable to you, not out to make a buck."

Future of military operations

2007-10-05T09:39:00.000-07:00

ILLUSTRATED: A peek into the military operations of the future. Democrats ought to campaign on promoting this change in the military.

A New York Times article out today lays a blueprint for how the Army and Marines ought to operate in the future. It describes integrating anthropologists with civil affairs and special forces doing nation building. This is the essence:

Tracy, who asked that her surname not be used for security reasons, is a member of the first Human Terrain Team, an experimental Pentagon program that assigns anthropologists and other social scientists to American combat units in Afghanistan and Iraq. Her team’s ability to understand subtle points of tribal relations — in one case spotting a land dispute that allowed the Taliban to bully parts of a major tribe — has won the praise of officers who say they are seeing concrete results.
Col. Martin Schweitzer, commander of the 82nd Airborne Division unit working with the anthropologists here, said that the unit’s combat operations had been reduced by 60 percent since the scientists arrived in February, and that the soldiers were now able to focus more on improving security, health care and education for the population.
“We’re looking at this from a human perspective, from a social scientist’s perspective,” he said. “We’re not focused on the enemy. We’re focused on bringing governance down to the people.”

People talk about "boots on the ground" as being the most important thing. That is the most important military component. Ultimately, war is about geopolitics, and governing requires the trust of the people with the authorities. That needs to be understood in the future by the military and State department.
I hope Democratic Presidential candidates start proposing this as a model as I have suggested here, here, and here.

SCHIP: A Hammer against Blue state Republicans

2007-10-03T09:28:00.000-07:00

ILLUSTRATED: Ironically, Democrats can illustrate a need for government involvement because they are often coming form a position of wealth.

In an earlier post, I described some of the ironies that some from the fact the Democrats often represent wealthier locales, and higher cost of living locales than Republicans. This is even though Democrats generally support government's hand in helping those left out of capitalist system. Additionally, I defined the real meaning of "All politics is local", the most misused phrase in politics. Thus, members of Congress will be influenced by the wealth of their power base, even though their personal ideology may be for more or less government.

With this SCHIP vote, states would be supported by the feds for supporting children's health insurance factored on the uniform federal poverty level. As we all know, a dollar stretches further in certain parts of the country than others. So as Tom Curry described, a lot of Republicans from wealthy blue areas like New York City, have to vote with Democrats to expand health insurance to families making over $60,000.

Let's be honest, these issues are touchy and one can sound flippant when discussing them. But if there is a Republican candidate (at any level) running in a high cost of living area, we need to hammer them on this issue.

Iraq debate: the soft spots

2007-09-12T16:52:00.000-07:00

ILLUSTRATED: There are weak spots for both sides of the Iraq debate.

Ok, there are more than two sides, but there are two main arguments being made. "Stay in and finish the job..." and "bring the troops home now...(perhaps with the caveat of "a residual force to fight al qaeda"). The first argument has a gaping logical hole. The second requires a moral acknowledgment.

I attended a town hall like forum last night on Iraq, all sides had well informed, articulate advocates. But it became clear to me that the George W. Bush position advocates have no real comeback when asked about the practical limitations of resources. Or lack thereof. This refers to funds and troop strength vis-a-vis our overall force structure. Raise the issue of raising taxes or continue borrowing from China, Saudi Arabia and others. Force people to explain the force structure. I was given the right wing talking point of the high retention rates in the military, and replied with the fact that re-enlistment bonuses have skyrocketed.
In sum: Oil revenue deal + security = political solution. We don't have the time or resources to walk the walk to see through a ten year plan.

As for the "get out now" crowd, they need to at least acknowledge that there will be a bloodbath, and perhaps a multifaceted genocide beginning next year. We are responsible for the conditions our president caused, and so we all bear a moral accountability. Have an answer that makes it clear that the American army has done what it can and the Iraqi people will have to create its own political order.

GOP's nadir, how to exploit it

2007-09-07T05:59:00.000-07:00

ILLUSTRATED: The mantle for the economy, Iraq, and valuing families is ripe for the picking.

A lot is happening in the news within a week of this writing. Back in June, I mentioned that Bush was finished politically, now I predict serious damage is being done to the Republican Party brand now in September. On the economy, Iraq, and family values, the GOP has been discredited. Now is the time to swoop in and offer an alternative.

- "The Bush economy is growing"? There is breaking news that 4,000 jobs were lost in the August. Normally, we need 150,000 new jobs just to sustain population growth. The overwhelming majority of Americans are worse off than they were last year.
What we say: "Democrats will create portable, affordable healthcare, lifetime education, and fair trade policies."

- "The surge is working"? The Iraq report will come out in a few days with no sign of success. This means an oil revenue deal combining with securing the entire country to allow an enduring political structure. None of this is happening.
What we say: "Redeploy to Afghanistan and our own homeland, and leave behind enough troops to fight al-Queda, protect our assets, and help contain the territorial integrity of Iraq."

- "The party of family values"? The Larry Craig scandal proves that the words "family values" are just rote, empty words spoken by Republican politicians. They are human, with typical family issues. Their party's policies do not value families.
What we say: "Democrats enact policy that values families."

Response to Osama bin Laden

2007-09-06T14:56:00.000-07:00

ILLUSTRATED: Two sentences for a Democratic presidential candidate to look "Presidential".

There is rumored to be a new video from OBL. Here's what to say:

"Mr Bin Laden, you're a fool to think you can scare the American people. If you're not caught in sixteen months, coming after you will be my top priority."

[There, in two sentences, you've reassured the safety of the American people, and totally criticized the national security policy of the Bush Administration.]

Presentation is key to campaign communication

2007-09-03T07:02:00.000-07:00

ILLUSTRATED- A lot of a campaign's communication is based on how volunteers present themselves. Your volunteers personas needs to be monitored.

I wrote a length about this previously. I am a strong believer in training volunteers. Verbal communication is only a small part of campaigning. Most experts say that most communication is non-verbal and tone of voice. Campaigns must take care to make sure that volunteers know how to present themselves. This includes making sure everyone is even keel and is dressed appropriately.

My theory on "campaign foot soldiers" is this: 1) indigenous people using community networks is best. 2) Paratroopers from elsewhere who present themselves in a culturally appropriate way are better than nothing. 3) Paratroopers who are campaigning to express themselves and not represent the candidate are worse than nothing. I call them "campaign suicide bombers" since they turn off more people than they attract.

No more McRich

2007-09-03T06:49:00.000-07:00

ILLUSTRATED: With the real estate meltdown, there is a harsh psychological change for many Americans. Like 9/11 for economic security.

The exurbs are supposedly where young families would form the base of a GOP majority. But from exurban suburbs to downtown condos, a lot of people are losing their homes,... if they can actually find a buyer. People cannot keep with their rising payments, and potential buyers cannot qualify for a loan.
This means that a lot of people are realizing that they are not upper-middle class. And they never were. That's a tough psychological shock, like 9/11 was for physical security.
I don't think the response of Democrats ought to be traditional populist appeals to a sense of helplessness. Instead, we should campaign on economic policies that paint a picture of a path to self actualization. I.e. portable health insurance, lowering the interest rate for educational loans, and lowering the general interest rate by lowering the deficit.

Value Families

2007-09-03T06:40:00.000-07:00

ILLUSTRATED: One of John Kerry's best lines was that we should stop preaching family values and start enacting policies that value families.

Hopefully the Larry Craig story will help a critical mass of Americans see through empty rhetoric about "family values". That phrase is simply a catch phrase that appeals to a certain constituency that has a certain lifestyle and conception about what a household is. But conservative politicians are just people, with all typical human conditions.
Everyone wants to be in a functional household. We now need to link Democratic policies to keeping families in tact. That means children's health insurance, job re-training programs, support for child care, and of course a robust retirement and health care system for the elderly.

Democrats = good family life

Organizational basics of campaigns don't change

2007-09-01T19:30:00.000-07:00

ILLUSTRATED: When setting up a campaign, first appoint a core group of people for organizational management, fundraising, and communication. Set up clear lines of authority functionally and geographically. Once the core is established, then you grow virally.

To all presidential and dog-catcher campaign chairs: when launching campaigns in 2008 and beyond, remember basics are basics. Start with them.

Right now social networking is all the rage, in the future there will be new technologies and techniques that I cannot conceive of. But do not lose sight of basic organizational principles. I see presidential campaigns tapping all of these new social networking websites, but without clear organizational control. What I fear is that social networking technology will facilitate dis-organization with wildcat groups being set up and (sometimes illegally) raising money.

Remember the three basic functions of a campaign are organizing the people, raising the money, and communicating the message. Whether the frame of reference is a small town, or an entire state, the person or persons who do all of these functions must be identified and deputized on day one. The world needs to know who is in charge, and what the message is. Then you network, with handshakes and mouse clicks.

Eventually, GOTV is done best by social networks. But that's for the last day, not the first day.

Not only does organization win in its own right, it reflects a professionalism and management savvy on the candidate.

Dems need to avoid blame for Iraq

2007-08-24T20:43:00.000-07:00

ILLUSTRATED: Political solution = Oil money distribution + security. Oil money distribution is nowhere to be found, thus there is absolutely no political progress. The GOP lost Iraq.

In 2008, the Democrats will be blamed for pulling the rug from under General Petraeus just as he was starting to succeed. It is a total lie, and we need to go on offense now.

In sum say: "The name of the game is the Iraqi government. Yes Petraeus has made it safer, but he won't have enough troops long enough. Also, there is no deal on oil distribution to all parts of Iraq. Thus, Iraq is failing under Bush." If asked about why are the Democrats cutting resources simply say: "OK, do you want a war tax, and possibly a draft?"

Longer version:
It's pretty basic that a viable political state needs a functioning economy and security (internal and external). The name of the game in Iraq is a political solution from the parliament which, at this writing, is on vacation. A political solution will not happen unless the Sunnis get oil revenue. The Sunnis live in the west without oil.
As was predicted earlier on this blog, General Petraeus' strategy is bringing results. It's just that he will not have the resources or the time to completely pacify Iraq. He now has 160,000 troops, and probably needs 200,000 for several years. It ain't happening.

Thus there will never possibly be a political solution beyond creating a federal government that is basically an oil trust that has guards on its borders with Iran, Turkey, and Syria.

Lastly, Democratic politicians are scared of Iraq going horribly wrong next year (I predict it will next spring) and being blamed for cutting resources. First, there aren't enough troops in the active military. Secondly, just suggest a war tax.

Football metaphors

2007-08-24T20:30:00.000-07:00

ILLUSTRATED: some metaphors to communicate the importance of the grassroots

"A good ground game opens up an air attack, a good air attack allows for a good ground game." Politics is like a really bad reality soap opera with strange people. The American people don't like it much. By knocking on doors, you humanize your candidate, it is far more effective than a t.v. ad. As long as you are using the same narrative as the t.v. commercials, you can finish the sale.

"Games are won on the line of scrimmage". Football pre-game shows are like most political media and scholarship. It focuses on strategy and colorful personalities. If a football game is close going into the fourth quarter, the game will be won or last on the line of scrimmage. It's BORING, if t.v. shows talked about it too much, viewers would change the channel, but it's the truth. But that's when games are won. If the polls are tied a week before an election, the election will be won doing the back-office grunt work, phone calling, and door knocking.

Speak softly, but carry a big stick (or vice versa)

2007-08-08T22:49:00.000-07:00

ILLUSTRATED: Depending on the power of your office, you have to know your audience, and calibrate your words.

Yesterday, there was a Democratic Forum hosted by the AFL-CIO. A running theme was that the "volume" of your speech is inverse to the size of your stick. For example, most commentators say that John Edwards' thunder was stolen by Dennis Kucinich on his left flank. Kucinich can make strong, clear statements since he knows he will never be responsible for the fate of these policies, as he will not become president. He can speak loudly since his "stick" is small.

At the other end of the power spectrum, Hillary Clinton made a classic elitist argument that a president cannot always say everything you think since words have consequences. As President Theodore Roosevelt knew. In fact anyone who has risen up to a position of power and authority knows that you need to tell the truth to be trusted. But a leader is responsible for morale, and telling the whole truth can be quite demoralizing. [Mastering that skill is what separates the Churchills, Lincolns, and Iaccocas from the vast majority of people with the title CEO. It's why I write this blog.]

On another level of analysis, there is the issue of speaking to the right audience. Clinton and Barack Obama were debating how strident his words about attacking al-Queda in Pakistan ought to be. Commentators made the point that Obama was playing to the stadium crowd, and Clinton, who got booed in the stadium, was playing to the television audience, and the media, and the Pakistanis.

Time will tell who was right. But my point for candidates is that if you are speaking to a crowd, make sure you know who the key audience is and tailor your answer to them. Is there a reporter in the crowd? An influential community leader? A tv camera? If so how many people will see the clip? etc.

Gary Hart sums up the issue in this last paragraph here.

What a pro-business environment is

2007-08-01T09:28:00.000-07:00

ILLUSTRATED: Democrats believe a pro-business environment means an educated local population and a large health care risk pool.

The unreconstructed conservative domestic policy is to cut taxes and accountability on the 3% of Americans who control capital, and that will spur so much economic growth, all problems will be solved. The unreconstructed liberal domestic policy is to increase the budget and authority of the 3% who control our public institutions, and they will solve all of society's problems. Both theories have been debunked in the eyes of the American people.

Last night I was at a dinner party with the theme of discussing the infamous Prop 13 here in California. [Digressing, dinner parties are great to discuss ballot issues and candidates with friends. They are a fun and informative way to connect people to politics] Reflecting, it reiterates that commerce needs a sound, functioning government.

Conservatives talk about "business friendly environments" basically meaning no taxes, little regulation, and making it hard for employees and consumers to sue them. A modern Democrat needs to counter that what businesses need are a smart talent pool and a cheap health insurance pool. Lastly, small businesses, without the economic leverage of large companies, need access to the legal system when they get shafted.

This means that we need good schools, access to higher education, a real health insurance plan, and access to civil justice.

It's all in the meta theme of strength through community, as opposed to isolation.

Party of governing, law, and accountability

2007-07-02T18:06:00.000-07:00

ILLUSTRATED: This commutation gives Democrats carte blanche to wear the cloak of lawfulness. All are accountable.

There is no ranting, raving, and rage on this blog. The three R’s are reason, relevance, and rhetoric. ("Rhetoric" is a maligned word that means the art of persuasion). With the Libby commutation here’s what we can say, (there’s a pattern here).

“Tort reform” call it “Access to Justice”. It’s about accountability. No person or company is above the law.

“White Collar Crime”, call it “Lock up criminals on street corners and criminals in corner offices.” It’s about accountability. No person or company is above the law.

“Regulations”, call them "Laws.” It’s about accountability. No person, official, or company is above the law.