Building on the Progressive Victory

==Building on the Progressive Victory==
: By George Lakoff on December 14, 2006, CommonDreams.org 
As the 110th Congress prepares to take office, the post-
election tug-of-war for the soul of the Democratic Party
continues, with DLC folks spinning the election as a victory
for centrism and others pointing to the role of economic
populism.
The tug-of-war began on November 7, 2006, as Rahm Emanuel sprang to
the podium in front of national TV cameras to announce a
victory for centrism. Two days later fellow centrist James
Carville called, unsuccessfully, for the resignation from the
DNC of Howard Dean. Dean's 50-state strategy had been crucial
in the Democratic victory. Carville and Emanuel are veterans
of Bill Clinton's administration. They appear to want a
centrist Congress and a centrist DNC in preparation for
Hillary Clinton's presidential run.
The struggle to explain the election continues because it may
well affect how Congressional Democrats will decide to act.
Economic populism or centrism? The truth, I think, is both
more complex and more interesting - and brings progressive
values to center stage.
Framing has been part of the controversy. Framing has been
about the deepest progressive values, ideas, and principles,
future progressive policies, and the enterprise of accurately
framing reality. Centrists, because of their concern with
moving the party to the right, away from progressive values,
have falsely framed framing itself as being mere messaging and
spin.
It is time to return to accurate framing, beginning with the
election itself.
The Friday night after the election, my wife and I were
standing in a movie line waiting to buy tickets. A young man
walked by dressed for a date and carrying a bouquet of white
roses. He stopped short, looked at me for a few seconds,
pulled out one white rose, and handed it to me saying, "Thank
you for helping the Democrats win the election," and walked
on.
I appreciated the white rose.
But there really should be thousands of white roses handed out
- to the campaign workers. And a dozen for each candidate. The
reason is that the new members of Congress did better than
their predecessors at communicating their values to the
public. Not much has been said about it, but they successfully
reframed public debate and did so in the best way: they framed
reality accurately.
They stopped shooting themselves in the foot, stopped
accepting conservative frames, stopped listing facts and
figures, and instead connected with their constituents, talked
about values, said powerfully what they believed, and named
what was real. That was what needed to be done on the
communications front. They did it and should get credit for
it. We at Rockridge appreciate your achievement, and the media
and all progressives should appreciate it too. The Republicans
did plenty to defeat themselves, but the Democrats had to work
to win it.
Framing matters, as centrists who are trying to frame the
election as a centrist win know well. Framing raises the issue
of moral worldviews and overall values and principles, and
they in turn raise the question of what values lie behind
policy prescriptions.
Centrists, who advocate moving to the right, don't want the
spotlight on moral values, because moving to the right means
adopting conservative moral values. Accordingly, centrists
have been trying to downplay framing as if it were merely
messaging, words without substance.
Centrism or economic populism? Or neither. The future of our
nation may depend on what the Democrats do. And that depends,
in significant part, on why they think they won.
There was a marvelous moment on NPR right after the election:
Melissa Block asking newly elected representative Heath
Schuler of North Carolina, a former NFL quarterback, what it
meant for him to be a Democrat, given that he opposed
abortion, opposed gay marriage, and supported gun ownership.
"Well, it's a reflection of my district," Schuler replied.
What makes you a Democrat, Block asked. Schuler replied that
it was what his parents and grandparents taught him: "A
Democrat helps people that cannot help themselves." What about
fiscal responsibility? Earmarks like bridges to nowhere are
irresponsible, Schuler replied; instead we should be spending
money on education, social security, universal health care,
preserving the environment, and renewable energy.
In short, what Schuler really cares about, what he was running
on, and what he got elected on were progressive policies -
even though he happened to hold some conservative positions
that inoculated him in his district against charges of being
"too liberal."
Schuler is what I've been referring to as a "biconceptual, "
someone who has progressive positions in certain areas of life
and conservative positions in others. What makes Schuler a
Democrat is that he identifies himself politically with the
progressive values he ran on, despite having conservative
positions he didn't run on.
Bob Casey happens to be a Catholic who opposes abortion
rights, but every position he ran on was a progressive
position. Jon Tester believes in gun ownership in Montana, but
that is not what he ran on. He ran on his progressive beliefs
- by the dozen. These candidates ran primarily on their
progressive positions. Despite having some conservative
positions, they do not run primarily on their conservative
positions. It was the progressive values they ran on that have
given them their mandate.
And Sherrod Brown in Ohio, a state that went to Bush in 2000
and 2004, beat a "moderate" incumbent by 11 percentage points
as a clear and powerful progressive voice.
Meanwhile, Harold Ford, Jr. lost in Tennessee for many
reasons, including a racist ad campaign against him. But among
the reasons was the way he campaigned. He ran enthusiastically
using conservative code words: personal responsibility, strong
moral values, character education, pro-family, a
constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between
a man and a woman, eliminate abortions, and so on. In short,
he had Heath Shuler's positions, but unlike Shuler, he ran
overtly on those positions and made a big deal of it, trying
to convince good ole boy Tennesseans that he was one of them.
As Shuler understood, if you really have those positions and
really are part of your community in that way, you don't have
to say so. As Tennesseans pointed out in interviews I saw,
Ford didn't seem credible running as a good ole boy. Moreover,
in the campaign footage I saw, his body language betrayed him;
he didn't come across as authentic, and authenticity is the
name of the game. What he was running on did not, in toto, fit
any consistent moral worldview. He was trying to be too many
things to too many people.
In short, the Democratic candidate who campaigned on
conservative values lost; those who may have had such values,
but campaigned on their progressive values, won.
Like Shuler and Casey, swing voters are biconceptuals, with
both conservative and progressive worldviews in different
areas of life and with both available for politics. How did
these biconceptual candidates appeal to biconceptual swing
voters? By taking progressive positions, and campaigning
vigorously on them. How did this work? They activated the
progressive values in the brains of swing voters.
Why did it work? Because swing voters, being biconceptual,
already had many progressive views. A large proportion of
those identifying themselves with the word "independent" or
even "conservative" happen to have progressive views in many
issue areas: They love the land - as much as any
environmentalist, even though they wouldn't use words like
"biodiversity" ; many are progressive Christians who take
Christianity to be about helping the poor and serving the
needy; many are civil-libertarians, though they would never
join the "too liberal" ACLU; and most care about their
families and empathize with people in dire straights. In
short, these are self-identified "conservatives" and
"independents" who have very real progressive values in
important areas of life.
What is a progressive worldview? It's simple: You have empathy
for others, and you act responsibly on that empathy, being
both responsible for yourself and socially responsible as
well. Progressives say, "We're all in this together" while
conservatives say," You're on your own." It was running on
those progressive values that won the election for the
Democrats.
The idea of "biconceptualism" - being conservative in some
areas of life and progressive in others - is crucial to
understanding this election. There is no such thing as a
consistent overarching worldview that is "moderate" or
"centrist" - a worldview that generalizes over all issue
areas. So-called "moderates" or "centrists" are actually
biconceptuals in different ways. Jon Tester's biconceptualism
is very different from Joe Lieberman's. They are both called
"moderates," but there is no single coherent doctrine that
they share. Jim Webb, Rahm Emanuel, John McCain, Lincoln
Chafee, Mike DeWine, and Olympia Snowe have all been called
"moderates," but again there is no single set of principles
that they all adhere to.
In this election, those candidates who defined themselves by
arguing progressive positions activated the progressive
worldview in those voters who had both worldviews available.
In short, the so-called "moderate" Democrats talked to their
"moderate" voters with the same morally grounded progressive
arguments they used with their progressive base. They did not
talk up all the progressive positions. But they talked up
progressive positions they really held, positions that in most
cases signal an identity as a Democrat.
What does this say about what the direction of the Democratic
Party should be - and not be? It says that the Democratic
Party should not be moving to the right on the positions its
candidates ran on. Success as a party depends, instead, on
having a clear moral vision and carrying it out. Right now, it
is the progressive moral vision that has brought them
electoral success and a mandate for change.
Does this mean that the Democratic Party, as a party, should
endorse all progressive positions? That is something for the
party to work out, and it will certainly answer no. But, the
Democrats may well wind up advocating mostly progressive
positions, though far from all of them.
Take the 100-hour agenda. It breaks into two parts, for the
two aspects of progressive values, empathy and responsibility.
The minimum wage, college loan interest, prescription drug
prices, and stem cell research are all empathy issues: they
are about caring about working people, young people, old
people, and those with debilitating diseases. Lobbying reform,
pay-as-you-go budgeting, and enacting the 9-11 Commission
recommendations are all responsibility issues. What the
progressives, blue dogs, and centrists can agree on are all
instances of progressive values. (Rockridge Nation, the new
community that the Rockridge Institute has just launched for
progressives to frame the debate at www.rockridgenation .org,
will feature a video in January in which I plan to discuss the
100-hour agenda and MoveOn.org's priorities in the context of
a broader progressive vision.)
Neuroscientists know that there are two conditions for change
in the synapses: repetition and trauma. The campaign provided
the repetition through ads and campaign speeches. And three
realities created traumas for the American public: Katrina and
the floating bodies, Iraq and the bodies blown to bits, and
the systematic financial and moral corruption represented by
DeLay, Abramoff, and Foley. The new Democratic winners didn't
shrink from pointing to those traumas, nor did they soft-pedal
their progressive views. They created a narrative of good guys
who care and bad guys who don't; good guys who use government
to get things done for people and bad guys who are out to
destroy government and don't get things done.
In the process they have started a new progressive populism.
Not a mere economic populism, but a thoroughgoing progressive
populism. It was not just about economic issues. It was also
about renewable energy and global warming, about honest
government, about a government to count on in case of
disaster, about not getting people killed in Iraq day after
day, about keeping good jobs here and creating more of them,
and about the importance of science in fighting disease. In
short, it was about government that cares about its citizens
and acts responsibly toward them and toward others in the
world. And as with a real populism, there was a handy
oppressor - radical conservatives in Washington who were lying
to the citizenry; taking bribes; outsourcing jobs; getting our
troops killed; letting a beloved city die; and all the while
getting rich on no-bid contracts. If that isn't rot at the
top, I don't know what is.
===The morals of the election are these:===
* Progressive values-based reframing has begun to work,
because it has been paired with authenticity (saying what
you believe) and with framing that highlights the very
real traumas affecting the nation.
* The Democrats who won Republican seats did so by running
on progressive values. Swing voters, who have both sets of
values, responded to their campaigns based on progressive
values they authentically believed in.
* The party, as a party, therefore should not be moving to
the right and adopting conservative positions, even if a
number of party members happen to hold such positions. To
move to the right is to give up any claim to a consistent
moral vision at the heart of the party. At the same time,
the party, as a party, need not, probably should not, and
certainly will not adopt all progressive positions.
* The role of the progressive activists, grassroots, and
netroots is to promote progressive values to biconceptuals
both within and outside the Democratic party - to activate
the progressive beliefs they already have and to extend
them further by speaking a progressive language and using
progressive values, ideas, and arguments. The goal is not
just to move the Democrats in a more progressive
direction, but to move Republicans and independents in
that direction as well. The idea is to benefit the nation,
not just the party.
* A populist progressive movement has begun and it needs
to be both studied and nurtured.
* And conservative values and practices, when they lead to
people getting hurt and our democracy undermined, have to
be attacked overtly. The villains and their villainy have
to be named. What's wrong with conservatism has to be
shouted from the housetops. Bob Burnett has made a good
start in a paper at: 
http://www.huffingt onpost.com/bob-burnett/killing-conservatism_ b_35771.html
This election marked a progressive victory and a victory for
progressive efforts at factually accurate, values-based
framing. We at Rockridge celebrate the triumph of progressive
ideas and values, as well as framing that accurately portrays
reality. We give a special nod to Jim Webb, both for his
economic positions and coming out and calling the occupation
of Iraq an "occupation. " We celebrate those in the media who
call the civil war in Iraq what it is.
We at Rockridge are proud of our role in the recent victory
for progressive values. We will, from the outside, be cheering
on those on the progressive side of the internal Democratic
tug-of-war. We hope that all the biconceptual Democrats -
those who are Democrats because they identify with and run on
their progressive values - will be pulling with us.
==Links==
* Progressive
category:news coverage