Mediaboss Marketing

To state the obvious: Partisan video clips are not designed to make the other party look good. Theres an art to these things. You compile the worst moments by the other team, or by an opponent, and try to make them go viral.

But a strange, flailing campaign by the Republican National Committee to demand a Democratic fix for the Affordable Care Act goes unusually far in misrepresenting what the opposition party is doing or saying.The RNCs push began on Wednesday with a series of tweets at Democrats such as Hillary Clinton, demanding they put up plans of their own. Clinton responded, predictably, by linking to the ACA plan she ran on in 2016, which included fully funding insurance subsidies and letting younger people buy into Medicare.

Unbowed, the RNC released a compilation of Democrats being asked by talking headswhy they would not work with Republicans to fix the ACA. Most analysis of the videohas been that its simply bizarre. As Republicans know, the opposition party does not need to run on its own detailed health plan to win elections.

But the video makes it look like Democrats are not just evasive, but stumped when askedwhat theyd be willing to change to fix the ACA. Thats not whats been happening. Here are the three main clips, with the answers that were sliced out of the video printed in bold. With Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.):

NBC News: Would it be smart for Democrats to offer their own alternatives, their own fixes for Obamacare now, and try to bring Republicans on board?

SANDERS: Well, thats exactly thats a very good point. And that is some of the ideas that we have been talking about. For example, I, personally, speaking only for myself, think that for a start, while we move to pass a Medicare-for-all single-payer program; short term, we should lower the age of Medicare down from 65 to 55. Secondly, I think we need a public option. That means in every state in the country, if you dont like what the private insurance companies are offering, then you have a public option with decent benefits. Thirdly, weve got to deal with the cost of prescription drugs in this country.

With Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-Va.) less substance, possibly because the question was about President Trumps complaint that Democrats were not working with Republicans:

CNN: Do you share part of the burden for a failure to improve Obamacare?

WARNER: Im viewed as one of the most bipartisan guys in the United States Senate. Every bill I work on, Ive got a Republican partner. There has been no outreach by the Republicans to the Democrats. They decided theyre using this sort of strange process called reconciliation that allows them to pass a bill with 51 votes, not the normal 60. Unfortunately, the bill thats come out of that has been pretty godawful.

With Rep. Jackie Speier(D-Calif.):

CNN: Why arent you working to fix this, rather than just saying no? What do you say to them?

SPEIER: What I would say to them is: Theyre absolutely right. There are a lot of amendments we have to make to Obamacare, just like there were a lot of amendments that were made to Medicare after it became law in this country. We have to fix the cost elements in the Affordable Care Act. We have to have more cost containment. I am with them in wanting to do that.

Left out of the video is that most Democrats want to respond to the immediate threat to the ACA, as cited by panicky insurers, by fully funding the taxpayer subsidies that make plans on state exchanges more affordable. And lets be fair:left out of seven years of Democratic attacks on the GOP was that Republicans did have health-care bills of their own, theoretically ready to go as soon as the ACA was repealed. (The last six months have revealed that they were less ready than advertised.)

But sometimes, these attempts by one party to shape a narrative are so dishonest than you wonder what the point was. Here, it seems that Republicans are trying to bait Democrats into endorsing a single-payer health care bill as Sanders plans to do when the AHCA/BCRA debate is over. For weeks, the White House has argued that the coming health-care choice is not between the ACA and its repeal, but between the Republican bill and a pricey single-payer plan.

There are two problems with that. One: Obviously, Democrats who get behind a single-payer bill will have answered the whats your plan question. And two, to the great delight of Democrats, the Republicans health-care bills are far less popular than the concept of single-payer Medicare for all.

More here:
Republicans try to shift health-care blame back to Democrats - Washington Post

On domestic policy, the Democratic Party is moving left. On foreign policy, the Democratic Party barely exists. Yes, Democrats like climate change agreements and oppose banning refugees. But those are extensions of the partys domestic commitments. Yes, Democrats support a hard line against Vladimir Putin. But thats mostly because he helped elect Donald Trump. What is the Democratic position on Syrias civil war? Or Chinese imperialism in the South China sea? Or Saudi Arabias war in Yemen and bullying of Qatar? There isnt one. President Obama stood for the proposition that America should resist costly military interventions and seek diplomatic agreements with longtime foes. When it comes to war and peace, the post-Obama Democratic Party doesnt really stand for much at all.

How to Deal With North Korea

Take North Korea. Ask congressional Democrats what America should do about Kim Jong Uns nuclear ambitions and they mostly answer: more pressure. Which is the same answer Republicans give. After Kim tested an intercontinental ballistic missile this week, Politico reported that Republican and Democratic lawmakers on Tuesday called on President Donald Trump to increase pressure on North Korea and China. In May, every Democrat in the House joined every Republican except one in supporting a bill to impose new sanctions against companies that do business with Pyongyang. In March, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on East Asia, the Pacific, and International Cybersecurity, Ed Markey, joined his Republican counterpart in praising the Trump administration for imposing new sanctions of its own.

For Republicans, this stance is ideologically coherent. Republicans tend to think Ronald Reagan proved that the way to deal with adversaries is through ideological denunciations, economic sanctions, and military threats. By contrast, Democratsat least in the Obama eraemphasized diplomacy and international cooperation. Instead of seeking the capitulation of hostile regimes, they sought deals that involved compromise by both sides. They supported pressure only when it helped to bring such deals about.

Not anymore. When I asked the veteran arms-control expert Joe Cirincione what todays Democrats believe about North Korea, he answered: A Bud Light version of the hawkish neocon view.

What makes this so tragic is that the path Trump is onwith bipartisan supportis doomed to fail. Were Democrats willing to risk a political fight, they could offer a better way.

Trumps path is doomed to fail because it is based on scaring Pyongyang into giving up its nuclear weapons when fear of the United States is a major reason Pyongyang wants nuclear weapons in the first place. Given that North Korea still has no peace treaty with the U.S. (the Korean War ended in an armistice) and watches American troops patrol the other side of the demilitarized zone, it has considered the United States a threat for a long time. But over the last 15 years, Americas efforts at regime change have left Pyongyang even more convinced that only nuclear weapons bring protection.

In April 2003, a month after the U.S. invaded Iraq, a North Korean spokesman declared that only military deterrent force, supported by ultra-modern weapons, can avert a war and protect the security of the nation. This is the lesson drawn from the Iraqi war. When Pyongyang conducted a nuclear test last January, its official news agency declared that, The Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq and the Qaddafi regime in Libya could not escape the fate of destruction after being deprived of their foundations for nuclear development and giving up nuclear programs of their own accord. Therefore, History proves that powerful nuclear deterrence serves as the strongest treasured sword for frustrating outsiders aggression. As Dartmouths David Kang has explained, To dismiss North Koreas security fears is to miss the root cause of North Koreas actions.

The Trump administration, however, believes Americas problem is that its not scaring North Korea enough. Asked as a candidate about assassinating Kim, Trump replied, Ive heard of worse things. In April, Mike Pence said that, When the president says all options are on the table, all options are on the table. Were trying to make it very clear to people in this part of the world that we are going to achieve the end of a denuclearization of the Korean peninsulaone way or the other. And in March, the U.S. and South Korea held an eight-week-long training exercise, involving more than 300,000 troopsmany more than in past yearsin which the two armies practiced missile strikes against North Koreas nuclear sites and decapitation raids aimed at killing its leaders. In response, Kim Jong Un appears to have quickened the pace of his nuclear and missile tests. Which was entirely predictable given what North Korea has said and done in the past.

The Trump administrations other strategy has been to urge China to pressure North Korea economically. (America doesnt do enough business with Pyongyang to wield direct economic leverage. China, by contrast, accounts for roughly 85 percent of North Koreas international trade.) But even as Democrats and Republicans responded to this weeks intercontinental ballistic missile test by echoing Trumps demands, Trump himself was conceding that those demands have failed. Trade between China and North Korea grew almost 40% in the first quarter, he tweeted on Wednesday. So much for China working with us.

What Trump doesnt seem to grasp is why China isnt working with us. The reason is that as frustrating as China finds Kims regime, its more afraid of contributing to its collapse. If North Korea fell into chaos, China would have chaos on its border. If South Korea swallowed North Korea, China could have American troops on its bordera situation which it went to war in 1950 to prevent.

A Democratic alternative would start with the same recognition that underlay Obamas negotiations with Iran: Convincing adversaries to curb their military arsenals requires making America not more threatening, but less so. (Contrary to Republican mythology, Reagan embraced that same logic towards the USSR as early as 1984.)

Although neither Democrats nor the elite press is paying much attention, a number of former policymakers have offered ways to begin doing this. Last September, a Council on Foreign Relations Task Force led by former Joint Chiefs Chairman Admiral Michael Mullen and former Senator Sam Nunn suggested that the U.S. and South Korea consider modifications to the scale and content of U.S.-ROK joint military exercises as part of a deal with North Korea. This June, a group of international experts, including former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff James Cartwright and former Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Thomas Pickering proposed the same thing: the suspension, reduction and eventual cessation of US military exercises in South Korea. That same month, a letter from former Secretary of Defense William Perry, former Secretary of State George Schultz and former Senator Richard Lugar gestured in the same direction. Washington, it said, should make clear that the United States does not have hostile intentions toward North Korea. In other words, do exactly the opposite of what Trumpwith bipartisan supporthas done.

The Council on Foreign Relations Task Force also suggested that in order to convince China to use its influence with Pyongyang, the United States should be open to revising the number and disposition of U.S. forces on the peninsula. In other words, promise Beijing that even if Korea reunifies, American troops will never stand on the banks of the Yalu River.

Its too late to convince North Korea to scrap its nuclear and missile programs. But, with luck, concessions of the kind proposed by these former officials could be part of a deal to get Pyongyang to freeze them. And if you dont think that would constitute a major accomplishment, remember that Pyongyang still hasnt learned how to place a nuclear device on an intercontinental ballistic missile. In the next few years it likely will.

If Democrats offer such a vision, Republicans will immediately reply that you cant negotiate with Pyongyang. All of those negotiations and discussions failed, miserably, declared Pence in April. The mantra North Korea always cheats is so uncontested that it even shows up in news articles. The past three presidents have tried to negotiate, wrote Washington Post National Political Correspondent James Hohlman on Wednesday, only to learn that Pyongyang can never be trusted.

But thats at best a half-truth. Take the most important U.S.-North Korean nuclear deal, the 1994 Agreed Framework. Pyongyang promised to freeze its nuclear program. In return, the U.S. promised to provide heavy fuel oil to compensate for the electricity North Korea would lose by shutting down its plutonium reactor, to help build an entirely new, light water reactor, and to move toward normalizing relations.

Critics say North Korea cheated by secretly pursuing a different pathvia uranium enrichmenttoward a bomb. Thats true. But the U.S. cheated too. Because of objections by the Republican Congress, the United States repeatedly failed to deliver the fuel oil it had promised on time. As early as 1997, notes Leon Sigal, director of the Northeast Asia Cooperative Security Project at the Social Science Research Council, Pyongyang warned that if the U.S. didnt meet its commitments, it wouldnt either. Still, North Korea did not reopen its plutonium reactor, a facility that could, according to U.S. estimates, have produced 100 nuclear bombs. And by the end of the Clinton administration, the United States and North Korea had pledged that neither country would have hostile intent toward the other.

When the Bush administration took office, however, it refused to reaffirm this declaration of no hostile intent. And in 2002, when it learned about North Koreas secret uranium program, it used the revelation as an opportunity to scrap the agreement altogether. The North Koreans offered to abandon both their plutonium and uranium programs in return for a final deal that provided diplomatic relations and an end to sanctions. But as then-Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton admitted, This was the hammer I had been looking for to shatter the Agreed Framework.

Theres an analogy here with Obamacare. By 2002, the Agreed Framework had achieved a lot: It had stopped North Koreas primary nuclear program for eight years. But it had also developed real flaws. Instead of trying to fix them, the Bush administration used those flaws as an excuse to scrap a deal it had opposed from the start. The result: North Korea reopened its plutonium reactor and in 2006 conducted its first nuclear test.

Understanding this history is crucial to the Democrats ability to offer a real alternative to Trumps North Korea policy. When Republicans say diplomacy doesnt work, Democrats should ask the same question they asked when Republicans attacked the Iran deal: Compared to what? As a method of restraining North Koreas nuclear ambitions, Sigal argues, nuclear diplomacy has proved far superior to the record of pressure of sanctions and isolation without negotiations. Yet its that latter path that Trump, with the acquiescence of congressional Democrats, seems determined to take America down.

Why arent Democrats challenging Trump and the GOP? A Senate aide says its because the progressive foreign policy infrastructure remains so weak: A lot of Democratic members are cautious about getting out there because they know they wont have very much cover, and when they get bashed there arent many organizations that would get their back. Thats true. But its also true that progressive wonks, journalists, and activists will respond if they see politicians worth rallying behind.

The lesson of the Iraq War is that progressives must challenge the GOPs hawkish maximalism regardless of the political cost. The lesson of the Bernie Sanders campaign is that grassroots Democrats hunger for authenticity, independence and courage. If there are dangers for Democrats who challenge the current hawkish discourse on North Korea, there are opportunities too.

See the rest here:
Why Won't the Democrats Challenge Trump on North Korea? - The Atlantic

As offensive as it may sound to todays sensitive ears, it was only 11 years ago that a young and rising U.S. senator wrote the following about immigration:

When I see Mexican flags waved at pro-immigration demonstrations, I sometimes feel a flush of patriotic resentment. When Im forced to use a translator to communicate with the guy fixing my car, I feel a certain frustration.

That senator was Democrat Barack Obama from Illinois.

The quote comes from his 2006 autobiography, The Audacity of Hope. After getting our attention with that blunt description of his feelings, Obama goes on to argue against following those feelings as some people do, to justify denial of rights and opportunities to immigrants to become Americans.

I had forgotten about that quote until I ran across it in an important essay posted by liberal analyst Peter Beinart in The Atlantic this past week, as Democrats tried in vain to win a couple of congressional seats in traditionally red districts in Georgia and South Carolina.

Titled How the Democrats Lost Their Way on Immigration, Beinarts piece describes a Democratic Party trying to recover from President Donald Trumps upset victory, yet too hung up on the culture wars commonly known as political correctness.

Of course, one could just as easily say the same about the Trump eras Grand Old Party, too gridlocked, so far, by its own internal right-vs.-far-right conflicts to pass major legislation, despite its control of both houses of Congress.

Still, Republican gridlock is thin consolation for the Democrats long losing streak in President Obamas years. His two presidential victories distract us from Democratic losses of more than a thousand state legislative seats and governorships and two-thirds of the countrys legislative chambers.

In some ways, I think Beinart is too hard on the Democrats in accounting for such losses. I trace the collapse of compromise on immigration to 2008 when I saw Arizona Sen. John McCain, on his way to winning the GOP presidential nomination, booed at the Conservative Political Action Conference convention for advocating comprehensive immigration reform. He later abandoned that cause, and efforts by both parties to revive it have failed.

Yet lets give credit where it is due. Republicans were singing the blues in similar fashion when Obamas elections in 2008 and 2012 and other Democratic victories threatened the long-term future of the Republicans as a national party. Instead, grass-roots groups like the tea party movement scored victories at the state and local level that have led to the GOPs current dominance.

Which brings me back to how Obamas quote illustrates how he managed to win twice what Hillary Clinton twice lost, the presidency. His feelings of patriotic resentment sound like an honest description of a concern that many people share. It is through expressing such sincerely held feelings, even at the risk of being called racist, that honest dialogue can begin and, one hopes, lead to useful compromise.

In the best of all possible political worlds, candidates from both parties calm such irrational fears by educating voters with facts, not just alarm. Unfortunately we do not live in that best political world these days. Instead, we are treated to Trumps craven slander of undocumented immigrants as an invading tide of murderers and rapists.

Yet, if you dont allow candid discussion of real issues, phony hot-button issues will take center stage. Think of the difference it would have made if Hillary Clinton had expressed, as her husband used to say in his 1992 presidential bid, how I feel your pain.

Todays post-Trump Democrats are divided. One side says they must abandon identity politics that appeal to every left-out group but working-class and middle-class whites, who feel left behind by economic and cultural change.

The other side says, no, giving voice to traditionally left-out women and minorities is a core belief and essential to the turnout the party needs to win elections especially when they dont have a big draw like Obama on the ballot.

I think both sides of that debate are right. Democrats have been most successful when they have given voice to bread-and-butter working-class concerns, regardless of race or tribe. They can do it again, if they really want to win.

Read the rest here:
Democrats must return to bread-and-butter issues - The Philadelphia Tribune

Sign Up for

Our free email newsletters

Here's the thing about politics: Everybody thinks they can do it better than the professionals.

In that sense, it isn't surprising that a couple of super-rich Silicon Valley entrepreneurs would come along thinking they can "disrupt" an entire political party. As this story in Recode tells us, Mark Pincus and Reid Hoffman are ready to save the Democrats:

Pincus, the co-founder of Zynga, and Hoffman, the brains behind LinkedIn, want to force Democrats to rewire their philosophical core, from their agenda to the way they choose candidates in elections the stuff of politics, they said, that had been out of reach for most voters long before Donald Trump became president.

That's the guiding principle behind Win the Future, a new project by the tech duo that's launching in time for July 4. The effort called, yes, WTF for short aims to be "a new movement and force within the Democratic Party, which can act like its own virtual party," said Pincus, its lead architect, during an interview.

Think of WTF as equal parts platform and movement. Its new website will put political topics up for a vote and the most resonant ideas will form the basis of the organization's orthodoxy. [Recode]

Zynga, in case you were unaware, is the game company that had its biggest hit with Farmville. LinkedIn, as you surely are aware, is the company that allows people you neither know nor care to know to send you emails asking you to join their network, even though you thought you canceled your membership five years ago.

Let me pause at this point to say that I would never make an unequivocal defense of the strategic acumen of Democratic Party insiders (ahem). They screw up all the time. They get things wrong, they make mistakes, they miss opportunities, and they get caught in old ways of thinking. But that isn't because they just haven't been "disrupted" by Silicon Valley yet. It's in large part because politics is complicated and defined by uncertainty.

One of my core beliefs about Washington is that, as the screenwriter William Goldman said about Hollywood, "Nobody knows anything." To clarify, there are many things about which people know a great deal, but predicting political outcomes is incredibly hard, given the massive number of variables and unexpected events that affect who wins an election or whether a consequential piece of legislation passes. That's what makes it interesting, but it also means that even people who master the mechanics of politics can fail.

Yet everyone thinks that if they were in charge, their side would always win. (And yes, this applies to people who work in politics themselves. Ask any mid-ranking campaign staffer why his candidate lost and the answer will inevitably be, "If only they had listened to me!") Everyone who watches the news thinks that they understand what it's all about, because they've learned the basics. That's particularly true because journalists spend so much time talking about strategy what rhetoric politicians are using, which voter groups they're trying to appeal to, who's up and who's down. Watching those kinds of reports makes you feel like you've gotten a glimpse behind the curtain and seen the hidden gears and levers.

The problem is that even if you grasp all the mechanics of the process, that doesn't mean you have a secret key that would transform your favored party's fortunes. But if you're rich, you probably think you do. Everyone around you is constantly telling you how brilliant you are, and on the occasions when you meet politicians, they listen avidly to your ideas, making you feel that they are amazed by your insight. (You may or may not be aware that they have a lot of practice at this particular kind of interaction, and are also eager for you to give them some of your money.) You walk away thinking that you totally rocked that senator's world when you told her about your idea for a new message her party should use.

The history of rich guys thinking that the fact of their wealth makes them political geniuses is about as long as the history of rich guys investing money in politics. Ask any party operative or political non-profit executive about it, and they'll roll their eyes and tell you stories about the ludicrous ideas some major donor has dropped on them. But nobody says to the donor, "That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard," because that would insult them and then the money would stop coming in.

Silicon Valley gazillionaires may be particularly prone to believing themselves to be political geniuses, because their community has an ideology about its own brilliance. They disrupt everything, using their incomparable minds to shatter the old ways and replace them with a shining and limitless future! Of course, sometimes it's actually true. But other times you're not Jeff Bezos remaking shopping or Larry Page and Sergey Brin changing our relationship to information you're just a guy who made millions on a time-wasting game people (used to) play while they were bored at work. And there were a thousand people just as smart as you who didn't have the right luck or timing.

But let's not be hasty. Perhaps WTF has some ideas so revolutionary that they can truly remake our politics. Let's see:

Participants can submit their own proposals for platform planks and if they win enough support, primarily through likes and retweets on Twitter, they'll become part of WTF's political DNA, too. Meanwhile, WTF plans to raise money in a bid to turn its most popular policy positions into billboard ads that will appear near airports serving Washington, D.C., ensuring that "members of Congress see it," Pincus said.

WTF is also eyeing more audacious efforts: Initially, Pincus had planned to solicit feedback at launch on recruiting a potential challenger to Democrats' leader in the House, California Rep. Nancy Pelosi, in a primary election. That idea is on hold for now but Pincus and Hoffman are still trying to solicit candidates to run elsewhere as so-called "WTF Democrats." For Pincus, one of his early targets: Stephan Jenkins from Third Eye Blind. [Recode]

Whoa whoa whoa ads on billboards??? You just blew my mind. How is it nobody ever thought of that before?

As for the guy from Third Eye Blind, I've got nothing against him. He should run for office if he wants! But perhaps "I heard this rock star talk about politics and he didn't sound like a complete idiot so maybe he should be my congressman" isn't some kind of revolutionary idea that will transform America into a post-partisan utopia of clear thinking.

To repeat, there's no reason to think the Democratic Party couldn't use reform. For starters, they need to make a much heavier investment in grassroots organization that's sustainable between elections. And Silicon Valley could certainly help (perhaps shoring up the party's cybersecurity might a start; you might remember that was something of a problem in 2016). There's precedent here, too: Barack Obama's 2008 and 2012 campaigns benefited hugely from tech industry people who built powerful tools for volunteers to connect and organize.

But if you think that American politics is going to be completely upended once we create a new political version of Farmville or LinkedIn (or Uber or Snapchat or Kayak or anything else), then you're probably going to be disappointed. But don't let me stop you there are probably worse ways to waste your money.

More here:
Silicon Valley can't save the Democrats - The Week Magazine

By Ron Klain By Ron Klain July 5 at 7:25 PM

Did Democrats ignore or worse, condescend to white working-class voters in 2016?Did many of these voters back Donald Trump because of his promises to restore economic growth for small towns and in manufacturing and mining or because they resented rising prospects for minorities and women?Can these voters be returned to the Democratic fold with sharper economic messaging? Or does appealing to them require an unthinkable retreat on issues of social justice and inclusion?

These questions have divided Democrats since Election Day. But who really condescended to working-class voters in 2016 and what should replace such condescension today?

The most damning piece of evidence for the Democrats condescended claim is Hillary Clintons statement last September that half of Trumps supporters were a basket of deplorables.I was with Clinton the next day, and it was clear how much she regretted that formulation.Worst of all, the focus on this comment drowned out the real point of her remarks:that Democrats had an obligation to understand and empathize with Trump supporters in the other basket people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, [and] nobody cares about them.

Far from condescending, Clintons campaign spoke truth to these voters: Our economic future is Stronger Together.Americas best hope to remain an economic superpower is an inclusive economy where immigrants start businesses and create jobs, where everyone can make meaningful contributions to an innovative economy and where the United States masters the economic opportunities that come from challenges such as climate change.That message may not have appealed to some working-class voters, but it isnt condescension its honesty.

By contrast, Trumps economic message has been a kind flim-flammery where the carnival barker lavishes compliments on his audience while whispering to his sidekicks, Can you believe they are buying this?He extolled the virtues of Buy American while building his own projects with imported Chinese steel.He made immigrants the scapegoats for a wide array of economic problems, while applying for special visas to import foreign workers for jobs at Mar-a-Lago.

It was Trumps campaign that reeked of condescension when he told working-class voters that he alone could make sure that jobs shipped overseas come back. Trumps presidency is erected on faux populism, as he claims to look out for forgotten people while saying that only rich people are qualified to formulate economic policy and using the presidency to promote his familys businesses. Appealing to working-class voters on false promises and flawed premises is not showing them respect:It is a condescending belief that with enough bluster and showmanship, you can get away with anything.

Democrats should respond to this not by writing off white working-class voters, or by mimicking Trumps divisive rhetoric and hollow promises but with a combination of honest talk and a new social and economic contract for the working class.

The honest talk starts with unapologetically reminding Trumps working-class voters that immigrants like their own ancestors have always made America greater, bringing new energy, ideas and job-creating businesses to our country.It means telling them (as President Barack Obama did), that the time has passed when you didnt have to have an education ... [and] you could ... get a [good] job.It means rejecting economic nostalgia, and embracing technology and innovation; when these forces are shaped by the right policies and a fair tax system, they can create a stronger middle class in our country, as they have during earlier periods of economic transformation.

A new social and economic contract for the working class would include replacing the confusing mishmash of higher education plans with a clear program to make four years of education after high school free and universal.It should include defending and then building on the Affordable Care Act so that every American has health coverage without fear or doubt.It should ensure that benefits such as unemployment compensation and workers comp are available to all, whether they are employees or contract workers.It should make affordable child care a right (not a scavenger hunt) and life-long skills training an American area of excellence.

But like any true contract, this set of benefits must be paired with obligations. This includes an uncompromising insistence that the economy it creates will be inclusive and that, with a program in place to restore economic opportunity for those who have been left behind, there can be no excuses for resentment of Americas growing diversity.It also includes acceptance that young people will have to get education after high school, working adults will have to continually improve their skills, and some long-beloved occupations will be replaced with new jobs. The nostalgia for an America where brawn alone was enough to create a middle-class life and where a comfortable stagnation was revered as tradition must be abandoned.

Candor, not condescension, is the Democrats path to unmasking the false promise of Trumpism and reclaiming working-class voters in 2018 and beyond.

Excerpt from:
To win the working class, Democrats need to start talking straight - Washington Post