Mediaboss Marketing

By late Tuesday night, the answers were rolling in. Prominently mixed into this dog's breakfast of recriminations, mostly from the party's activist left, there is at least one recurring thread: Democrats do not have, either by omission or commission, a cohesive economic message. Operatives and consultants peddle tactics, electoral "paths" to power, but after eight years of riding President Barack Obama, mistaking his talents for their own, the brain trust is unable to drive the party.

Still, as it relates to Georgia's 6th Congressional District, a number of caveats apply. Jon Ossoff, the 30-year-old former congressional staffer and documentary filmmaker, entered the race facing long odds. No Democrat had won the seat in his lifetime. Hillary Clinton came close to nicking the vote there from Donald Trump last November, but fell short. Tom Price, whose departure to join the Trump administration set off the months-long contest, won re-election a little more than six months ago by more than 20 points. Ossoff, despite losing, ate substantially into that margin.

And for the left flank of activists, that's a problem. For now and going forward into 2018 and beyond.

Most of the more prominent progressive objections look back further than the beginning of this race. Ossoff's particular strategic failures or flawed messaging were panned, but the most convincing criticism has been trained on the institutional aimlessness that guided him. This analysis by some progressives questions the fundamental assumption that Georgia's sixth was a national bellwether, instead presenting it as a lagging indicator of Democratic rot.

Not that Ossoff isn't catching his share of the blame. He ran, as much as anything else, as a Democratic cipher and seemed, in interviews and public appearances, to be physically straining himself to avoid any contentious comments. Disinclined to define himself, Handel and the Republicans wisely lashed him to a muddling party. (Hence the resurgence of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, more than seven years' removed from the speakership, as the chosen bogeyman. She at least represents something.)

"Until we take a risk as a party in offering a bold economic platform, we're not going to break through in some of these elections," California Rep. Ro Khanna said on the phone late Tuesday night. "When you try to target things to a lowest common denominator, you run the risk of not having an inspiring message."

Other critics, many less preternaturally diplomatic than Khanna, were unsparing. Democracy for America Chair Jim Dean unburdened himself in a press release delivered soon after Ossoff's loss was confirmed. But like the congressman, Dean zeroed in on the failures of the party's high level strategists.

"Defeating Republicans in districts that they have traditionally held requires doing something drastically different than establishment Democrats have done before," he said, listing among those priorities "heavily (investing) in direct voter contact to expand the electorate."

Questions about the theories that guided how Ossoff and his campaign spent their windfall were a recurring theme.

In an email, Robert Becker, who ran Sen. Bernie Sanders campaign in Iowa (and later, as deputy national field director, helped author its most famous win, in Michigan), was openly disdainful of what he suggested had been wasteful party management.

"Well, seems we spent $30 million to get 48% in Georgia ... and next to nothing to get 48% in South Carolina. One has to wonder what impact $30 million would have if it was directed to state Democratic parties instead of a gazillion TV ads," he wrote. "Maybe try standing for something and investing in grassroots instead would be the lesson?"

Other progressive activists asked why the district had become such an obsession for Democrats. Yes, Clinton did well there. But the logic, they insisted, was faulty. She might have overperformed in areas that went for Romney, like Georgia's sixth, but that was because her campaign targeted them -- not because they are naturally ripe to shed the GOP.

The strategy recalled a now infamously misguided prediction put forth by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer ahead of the 2016 election, when he posited that "for every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin."

Enter here a close cousin of Schumer's theory, the "Panera Bread path." Former top Clinton aide and Democratic strategist Brian Fallon, in a tweet on the night of the first round of voting in Georgia, held up the caf casual dining franchise -- typically located in comfortable suburban precincts -- as a rough guide for where Democrats should dedicate their resources ahead of the 2018 midterms.

"Even if he doesn't hit (50% and win outright) tonight, Ossoff is showing us the path to retaking the House," Fallon wrote. "It runs through the Panera Breads of America."

Progressives bristled, as much at the message as the messenger.

"We won't defeat Trumpism by courting moderate Republicans in wealthy suburbs," Max Berger, a co-founder of #AllOfUs, the millennial progressive group, told CNN. "Trumpism will be defeated by mobilizing voters who feel left behind -- young people and working class people of all races -- to take on the billionaires and the ruling class. The Democrat consultant class thinks a Panera strategy is their path back to power, but the left will no longer be led by those who offer no alternative."

What the desired agenda looks like remains a rolling question. As the Sanders campaign slowly broke up, the activists and organizers who drove its success mostly scattered, seeking to grow the new coalitions brought together by the Vermont independent's progressive populist platform.

Anna Galland, executive director of MoveOn.org, hit this vein in her post-election message.

"Ossoff and the (Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee) missed an opportunity to make Republicans' attack on health care the key issue, and instead attempted to portray Ossoff as a centrist," she said in a statement, "focusing on cutting spending and coming out opposition to Medicare for All."

It was hardly the "sweeping change," Galland argued, "that the American people are clamoring for."

The string of defeats, going back to the 2014 midterms, provides further evidence, progressives and leftists say, that -- without a uniquely talented group of candidates on the horizon -- the party will no longer be able to paper over decades of either bland or, in the case of trade deals like NAFTA, destructive economic policies.

"I don't think many (national Democrats) have the charisma of Obama, the weird likability and material language of Sanders, or the conniving ability of Harry Reid," said Felix Biederman, co-host of the "Chapo Trap House" podcast. "It's time for them to stop ratf-----g even the hint of a left in their party and activate those voters who usually don't vote."

Read more here:
Progressives already thought Democrats were aimless. The special election wipeout might prove their point - CNN

A whole lot of sound and fury has been made over political correctness. Its impossible to avoid talking about it, given its important role in the culture wars.

The old conservative yarn about political correctness is that its a leftist tool to suppress free speech. It accomplishes this by conditioning political discourse according to the constantly evolving rules and mercurial sensibilities of the left. This set-up skews the conversation from the outset in favor of the left. In this sense, political correctness has mostly been bad for the right so far.

Political correctness has doubtless played a major role in transforming our society according to the progressive program, and it continues to be the lefts major weapon in the culture wars. But how long can this advantage last?

Because of the fragile sensibilities of progressives, the culture wars have become, increasingly, a battle about speech rather than ideas. And this is starting to be bad for progressives. A tool that was meant to give them an edge is turning on them, and making them look out-of-touch and foolish.

The thing about odd speech is that it excites our amusement involuntarily. Lewis Carrolls Jabberwocky is funny because its all nonsense. There is something inherently funny about nonsensical bullshit.

When leftists butcher language to make reality conform to their ideas, the results are often ridiculous and difficult for outsiders to take seriously. SJW talk has been the butt of internet jokes for a while now, long enough to almost stop being funny altogether. Once upon a time, it was edgy and original to satirize the odd lingo popularized on Tumblr to describe confused young people who didnt receive enough attention from their parents growing up. There was something funny about those non-binary conforming non-GMO eating otherkin because the language seemed innocuous.

Its not funny anymore because it has become obvious that the left was never joking. Recently, Cambridge University tutors were told to stop using the word genius because of its sexist assumptions. Too often, genius has been used to describe brilliantly inventive men; therefore, the term genius is offensive to women.

To observers outside this strange bubble, this linguistic revisionism is pretentious, confusing, and simply ridiculous. It does nothing but push people away.

Political correctness is not new, but there is a growing feeling, not only on the right but outside the extreme-left campus bubble generally, that it didnt used to be this crazy. It only seems new because it has reached such an intensity of ridiculousness as to impress itself as something completely original. We are free-floating in a whole new world of linguistic and logical possibilities. In this world, it is possible at one and the same time to be a radical feminist and a devout Muslim; race is a social construct, but whites are inherently guilty for past injustices; and cisgendered people, the normative group, are expected to treat transgendered people like the new normative group. Most people identify with their biological sex, so it goes without saying that most people would balk at being prompted to give their preferred gender pronoun. Only in the vacuum-sealed world of academia could a question like this make any sense.

This system of ideas, if it can be called that, has no internal logic because it is not based on time-honored common sense. We have become unmoored from the traditions that Westerners accepted for generations to make sense of the world, and in doing so, we have discarded common sense.

The left has become reliant on political correctness to conceal the illogic of this system. Open dialogue is threatening to the left because it risks exposing their ideology as illogical and indefensible.

Outside the campus leftist bubble, people in the real world arent taken in by this Panglossian junk.

All it does is hurt the left in the end. Jon Ossoffs electoral loss has demonstrated better than any recent election could that the left needs to rethink how it reaches the electorate. A platform based on political correctness and antipathy towards the President wont do.

Worse, political correctness brings down political discourse by making it all about speech and feelings rather than ideas. Part of having a productive conversation is having clear ideas. Every philosophy undergrad knows this. How is it even possible to have a productive discussion when the ideas arent at the forefront of the discussion? When the terms to signify those ideas are constantly evolving?

Political correctness has been helpful to the left so far, but it will only hurt the progressive cause in the long run. If progressives dropped the language games, the constant speech policing, and the histrionic hurt parades, they might well lose some support, initially. But if they want to stay in touch with the electorate, they will have to, at some point, reflect, develop a better strategy for reaching people, and come down to earth. Maybe, then, theyll start winning again.

Read the original:
Political Correctness Presents A Challenge For Progressives - The Daily Caller

Peter Beinart has an excellent essayin The Atlantic on how the American Left has shifted on immigration. Just a decade ago, he writes, progressive intellectuals such as Glenn Greenwald, Paul Krugman, and even Barack Obama at least acknowledged the costs of immigration. In fact, Krugman outright stated that, Realistically, well need to reduce the inflow of low-skill immigrants.

I would add to those examples the New York Times editorial from 2000, Hasty Call for Amnesty, which declares, Amnesty would undermine the integrity of the countrys immigration laws and would depress the wages of its lowest-paid native-born workers. Far from sounding progressive to our 2017 ears, this is the kind of statement that might get a speaker disinvited from a college campus these days.

The strange marriage of progressivism and mass immigration has always puzzled me. Last month, I wrote an articlefor RealClearPolicy showing that progressive and high-immigration California is failing by progressives own standards. California has the nations highest poverty rate, its math and reading scores rank near the bottom, and its communities suffer from low levels of social trust. These problems have many causes, but mass low-skill immigration has clearly exacerbated them. Two questions for progressives follow. First, if the nations leader in blue-state governance cannot mitigate the problems related to mass immigration, which state will? Second, and more broadly, how does immigration move us closer to the egalitarian, cooperative, and science-loving society that progressives envision?

I never received any answers to these questions, but maybe the Beinart article points to one: Immigrants and the organizations that lobby for them are now an important Democratic-party constituency. As a result, boosting immigration has itself become a progressive cause, even if it means the old-fashioned vision of egalitarian communities has to be permanently set aside. This is a major political realignment, and yet another example of how mass immigration fundamentally changes nations.

Follow this link:
Immigration Has Changed the Progressive Movement - National Review

Lest we forget at least an over the shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history beginsor which is which), the very first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdomLucifer. Saul D. Alinsky, Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals.

Alinsky wrote the playbook for todays progressive movement. It is not at all impossible to see the hate that exists in the progressive movement when you consider the author of their playbook, Alinsky, used Satan as his shining example of success using radical tactics.

Last week a mad man opened fire on several sitting members of Congress critically injuring the House Majority Whip Steve Scalise. Unlike a 1954 attack on House representatives, this attack came from one of our own, not a group of Puerto Rican nationalists. Scalises attacker was a guy from Illinois.

The 1954 incident injured five members of the House and actually occurred on the House floor when four members of the Puerto Rican Nationalist Party opened fire from the visitors gallery. The assailants were fighting a war for Puerto Ricos political independence while the House was debating, coincidentally, an immigration bill.

The man from Illinois, on the other hand, was born and bred in the United States. He was a union member and a supporter of Bernie Sanders. Sanders openly apologized for his actions, but it wasnt Sanders fault. The fault lies in the ridiculous ramp up of political vitriol and the violent past of the leftist movement.

The problem with this guy from Illinois, aside from a reported tendency to act violently, was his political indoctrination through the union. The union has had a long history of violence from their beginnings during the Bolshevik Revolution and the rise of the Communist Party to their days of being in cahoots with the mafia. Most famously, mobster Jimmy Hoffa ran the Teamsters.

While the mafias grip has waned since the government crackdowns in the late 1980s, it doesnt mean their tactics are all that dramatically different. Theyve simply adopted the same playbook the radical left has been using for years. Alinsky was a guy whose core belief was that Conflict is the essential core of a free and open society. If one were to project the democratic way of life in the form of a musical score, its major theme would be the harmony of dissonance.

There are a lot of new players in the political game since the 2008 elections. Its a good thing when you consider the new people who are getting active in our political process. Unfortunately, it is also can be a bad thing when you consider the political hatred that came with it.

The fringes of political thought have dominated our political debate in recent years. Consider the swing of the same political electorate that delivered the extreme political views of Barack Obama and Donald Trump. Whether you are a Democrat or a Republican, taking a moderate position is doomed to have one labeled as an in-name only participant (not to be confused with calling out candidates who have seemingly switched teams for political gain).

Since the 2016 election, the anti-Trump rhetoric has been over the top. Its a national embarrassment the way the left has done everything from stage Shakespearean remakes showing the assassination of Trump (in lieu of Julius Caesar) to a downward-spiraling comedienne holding his severed head for the cameras. Clearly the unions and progressives were not behind last weeks attack nor were they involved in any way, shape, or form. They are, however, responsible for the language of hate thrown at any concept that remotely smells like a conservative idea.

The labor movement has been racked with violence since its beginning. The progressive movement and its Alinsky-like tactics are not far behind. Combine Alinskys lessons along with the irrational attacks against, not just the policies of a sitting president but staged against his very life, theyve created the environment for at least one kook to go unhinged.

Tim McCumber is a resident of Merrimac.

It really is time for the left to ramp down the hateful rhetoric and violent displays against our president. If they do not stop, the attack on House representatives is just the starting point. It is likely to get a lot worse.

Lest we forget the very first radicalor end up in the same place.

Continued here:
TIM MCCUMBER: Progressives and the first radical | Opinion ... - La Crosse Tribune

Laura Weber Davis/WDET

Stephen Henderson (left) with Faith Fowler (middle) and Nick Hood III(right)

Many of the major progressive movements of our nation were rooted in the church. Political strategy centered around moral obligation came from religious groups that pushed for an end to slavery, equal rights for women, and an end to Jim Crow laws. But over the past few decades the message of religious obligation and morality has been largely won-over by the Conservative movement. The Republican Party has benefited greatly from the support of the conservative church, which has found political inroads with an anti-abortion, anti-LGBT, evangelicalbase.

But new humanist movements are afoot that have invigorated the liberal church with discussions at the fore over the value of Black and immigrant lives, and the future health of ourplanet.

Can progressive churches and religious messages find their way back into political and social prominence in a way that shapes the future of our country? Or are progressive movements now owned primarily by secularAmerica?

Laurie Goodstein, national religion correspondent for theNew York Times, recently published an article titled Liberals Fighting for their Faith: Seeking to Break Rights Grip on Nations Moral Agenda. Goodstein joins Stephen Henderson onDetroit Todayto discuss the role of faith inpolitics.

Goodstein says after President Donald Trump was elected, she noticed religious people wanting to make their presence known at marches andprotests.

I think what theyre saying is that they want to bring a moral language to the debate, Goodstein says. People of faith and the clergy, she says,believe they have language that can help the country decipherright from wrong.

The conversation continues withRev. Faith Fowler, executive director ofCass Community Social Servicesand pastor ofCass Community United Methodist ChurchandRev. Nick Hood III, pastor and senior minister of thePlymouth United Church of Christ, both inDetroit.

I think the challenge for today is that 65 or 70 percent of Americans dont go to church, says Hood. The people in the progressive movement who are driving the liberal politics right now, many of them are not in church The other issue is that many of the churches in Detroit are fighting for survival [because they] cant pay their water billSo I dont think the church has really forsaken the politics. Its kind of a sleepinggiant.

Many Detroit churches are struggling to stay open, but according to Fowler, theyre still driving charitable work in theircommunities.

Almost every church in the city of Detroit is doing somethingbecause theyre surrounded by such great need, says Fowler. At one of our main campuses, the poverty rate is over 44%, so those mercy ministries are important. But so are justice ministries Part of the problem is if churches receive government money, they feel very limited in what they can do as it relates to justice ministries because your funding comes from the government, the separation of church and state, and all that kind ofthing.

Click on the audio player above to hear the fullconversation.

Jake Neher/WDET

First Unitarian Universalist Church inMidtownDetroit

Read the original post:
Can Religious Progressives Become A Political Force Again? - WDET