The point is to Get Off Oil altogether

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?

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

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"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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).