Toward a Democratic Party Elevator Speech – “Patriotism, Equality, Science, Results”

Filed in National by on June 11, 2017

I was moved by the newly adopted Democratic Party Platform.  It collects a lot of our best values and highest aspirations.  What it doesn’t do is summarize those values into a quick elevator speech.  A quick manifesto or touchstone.    Here is my take on what that might look like:

Patriotism, Equality, Science, Results

Patriotism. If you love America, you want our country to prosper and for all of its people to be happy, healthy and productive. Democrats are on the front lines of protecting America’s core values and traditions.

Equality. No person of good will shall be excluded, looked down on, abused or ignored because of their economic status, religion, or sex. Democrats want all Americans to take part in building this great nation, and sharing the blessings of liberty.

Science. The complexities of modern life demand serious solutions that are grounded in empirical evidence, not ideology. Democrats value scientific study, and respect the hard won, practical benefits of science.

Results. Political policies have real world impact on our people and communities. Democrats are working to build a government that utilizes its strength to guarantee rights and services, is more influential and effective tomorrow than it is today.


About the Author ()

Jason330 is a deep cover double agent working for the GOP. Don't tell anybody.

Comments (35)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Paul Hayes says:

    Looks good to me at first reading. That may change or not as I reflect on it. As a former committeeman, I think it’s actually worth experimenting with during door to door activities. I contributed a suggestion to the platform committee (I think they did a great job, BTW) as a delegate to the convention back in May. At the same time, in studying the full document a few days ago, I made a list of all the “topics”. That list was less than impressive to me so I welcomed your submission this morning…

  2. puck says:

    When I was a tyke my father took me along on to the voting booth on Election Day, and I asked him what was the difference between Republicans and Democrats.

    He said “Democrats are for the little guy, and Republicans are for the fat cats. ”

    That’s all the elevator speech I need.

  3. Jason330 says:

    That’s the first and best Dem elevator speech. We might be able to get back to it in 20 or 30 years.

  4. RE Vanella says:

    Puck – Agreed. Trick is having a message and policies to convince the little guy that it’s true

  5. mouse says:

    How about follow the words of Jesus for the “Christians” who spew nothing but right wing ideology

  6. Delaware Left says:

    We’re fucked if the top bullet point associated with the party is “Patriotism”

  7. mouse says:

    Yeah, slogans..

  8. anonymous redux says:

    working against trump is patriotic. American institutions are in jeopardy. ok, maybe you don’t like American institutions. I get it. they’re flawed. but we’re in a new era. unlike in the 60s, the radicals — the ones who want to blow it all up — are now on the right.

  9. Jason330 says:

    Well put.

  10. alby says:

    Trump is going to be skinned like a rented mule. I only regret Americans lack the balls to give him the death by hanging he deserves.

  11. Ben says:

    Who, exactly, is going to be doing the skinning?
    The GoP who TOTALLY cares more about the country than their fascist agenda?

    Maybe the dems who will keep losing on purpose?

    Oh I know, it’ll be future president Booker who totally ISNT bought and owned by Jared.

  12. Ben says:

    Patriotism lost all meaning the day the “patriot act” was passed. When desiring that we stop sending our kids to be slaughtered to move Halliburton’s stock price up was considered “helping the terrorists”, that word became a fascist cudgel.

  13. alby says:

    @Ben: Glad you took your head out of the toilet bowl long enough to shout “Woe is we!” for us all.

    What you are offering is, whether you realize it or not, self-pity. It’s not a good look on anybody.

  14. Ben says:

    There are real things we can do to fight this, real things I am doing….. (in forums that dont just whine about John Carney, then dont do shit to fix the problem)…….. but misplaced hope that some savior of a Republican will bail you out is dumber than anything I’m spewing.

  15. Ben says:

    That’s your problem alby…. you have a lot of piss and vinegar, but you’re still holding on to the sad, desperate notion that justice is a thing you can count on…. or that anyone with any power in the government gives a flying fuck about the country.
    I forget which comedian said it, but we are just near the very top of the slow clicky part of this roller-coaster. If your plan is for Drump to get impeached, you have already conceded defeat for 2020. Your predicable response only demonstrates how delusional you are… (on this point, anyway)

  16. anonymous redux says:

    so what is your plan, ben? to narrow the number of possible anti-trump voters to progressive purists? there will not be enough of them no matter how much you whine about it. if you don’t accept moderates in your little club then trump world is here to stay. and if you think there’s no difference between moderates and trump fans then you’re the one who’s delusional.

  17. RE Vanella says:

    Actually there’s reason to believe that “moderates” – to whatever extent those people exist – needn’t be pandered to. British Labour just pulled off the largest parliamentary swing since 1945 and Corbyn didn’t court moderates at all. He did the opposite. He convinced young people to actually vote. Check turnout (very high) and the turnout by age group.

    So there’s that plan. It ignored moderates and was historically successful five days ago.

  18. Paul Hayes says:

    Ben, inasmuch as the right mis-appropriated the word, the suggestion is to re-appropriate (it’s been what, 15 years now) the word Patriotism and champion the progressive form of patriotism; fight it out on the use of the word and the values it represents. For example, it does not mean turning your back on a fellow American because he/she makes less money than you do. To be a Patriot is to be for all Americans, as I am for you…eh, you are American?

  19. Ben says:

    You must have me confused with someone else, redux.
    I never said anything about moderates and Drumpf…. I DID point out the fact that the Kushners donated to Booker, which should disqualify him… Im also hardly the first one to point out that Carney is a republican.
    I pulled the lever for Clinton and bugged all my friends to do the same. However.. she was a moderate who lost to an extremist, so whatever point you are trying to make falls flat. But do feel free to try again.

  20. Paul Hayes says:

    Anony, “progressive purists?” You are absolutely right, that damn moniker gets hung around our necks all to often, even if we cannot admit the lunacy of purity. How about we re-form ourselves into the “Progressive Impurists?”

  21. anonymous redux says:

    ben: the kushners can no longer be considered moderates, since no trump supporter can rightly claim to be in that category. that said, if you would “disqualify” booker because he once accepted a donation from them then you prove my point about self-destructive political political purity. you would vote for neither in a trump-booker race? that’s nuts. and Hillary didn’t lose because she was a moderate. she lost because she’s Hillary. also, extremism on the left has never appealed to enough voters. they just don’t like. far-left views have had their influence in moderate democratic administrations, and that’s a good thing. sadly, extremism on the right did succeed this time because these are weirdly unique times and we liberals missed the signs. I wish more democratic politicians were somewhat more liberal, but they can still be allies against trumpism.

  22. Ben says:

    Again, you’re making a lot of assumptions, man. idle thought……. if the Dem party hacks already have the knives out to defend Booker, I’ll take that to mean my prediction about them anointing him as they next candidate is probably right.
    Of course I’ll vote against Cheeto Hitler… what are you, new? I would just rather it not be a phony who hasnt had the fucking courage to call Drump what he really is. Someone owns Booker… maybe the testing company he fed Newark to. You really need to look into this guy you are so desperate to defend.

  23. RE Vanella says:

    “Extremism on the left” just appealed to a huge majority of UK voters. That is if you consider Corbyn an extremist. The fact is that they very likely were not voters before. The notion that the Corbyn/Sanders ideology doesn’t sell was literally just debunked five days age up and down Albion. Are we to simply ignore this?

  24. Ben says:

    to squishy moderates, any strong opinion on anything…. other than compromise with republicans… is an extremist view.

  25. RE Vanella says:

    Almost exactly one year ago “leave” won Brexit. 50 weeks later Labour swung parliament by the largest percentage since 1945. They did this on the back of Jeremy Corbyn. A Corbyn who backs tax increases and is more of a dove on war than Sanders.

    After the terrorist attacks in Manchester and London he blamed global terror on British and NATO foreign policy.

    Labour won by huge margins. Anon Redux is missing the plot.

  26. anonymous redux says:

    nobody’s defending booker except in the hypothetical context of him running against trump. otherwise, I have no particular feeling about him one way or the other. and it’s not about the democratic party. I have little interest in the party as such, only as a possible vehicle for getting rid of trump. why are you still stewing over the (relatively) small stuff? I make my assumptions based on what you say. if you don’t like that, then don’t say anything. words have implications. trump is somebody else who doesn’t want people to consider the implication of his words.

  27. Ben says:

    oh, very cute.
    I dont happen to consider the course the opposition party takes to be “small stuff”.

  28. anonymous redux says:

    vanella: I don’t consider bernie an extremist. you can tax the rich and get some of the money out of politics without being an extremist. I also think he would be pragmatic on the social issues, which a lot of Hillary’s fans were not. I wish he had been the candidate, although I do think he would have had to downplay the “socialist” talk to beat trump because, you know, “socialism.” I admit I need to read more about corbyn. I was just glad to see the brexit types go down. from what I have read, he seems like a regular left/liberal. would he have passed all the purity tests some liberals here insist on? and by the way, the guy in France is a moderate. now I’m gonna get my popcorn and watch the sessions hearing, even though ben seems to think it doesn’t matter.

  29. anonymous redux says:

    also, vanella, the average brit has less fear of “socialism” than the typical American voter does, because the brits are used to it. that’s why liberals have to cajole voters on that kind of thing. we can’t just assume it will be obvious to them. (sessions not on yet, so here I am.)

  30. RE Vanella says:

    Incorrect. But that’s a common mistake. Check the age demo breakdown. This one is as good as any:

    The older generation, who got the good government services post WWII (NHS, higher education, etc.) voted Tory in huge numbers. The younger people who have less experience with decent social welfare programs (as many have been cut back dramatically beginning with Thatcher through “New Labour” Tony Blair, etc.) voted for Labour in enormous numbers.

    You don’t know what you think you know. That’s OK as far as it goes. But it’s still incorrect. There’s no cajoling necessary.

  31. Paul Hayes says:

    I think we are witnessing a “sea change” regarding single payer and will see it in 4 years or less.

  32. RE Vanella says:

    Oh, and again, look at voter turn-out as percentage of the population Britain vs US. It’s really not “voters” who need to be convinced necessarily. Convincing the person who is currently a non-voter is far more effective. That’s what Corbyn just did.

  33. alby says:

    “misplaced hope that some savior of a Republican will bail you out is dumber than anything I’m spewing.”

    The mistake you make is in thinking that I am predicting the exact course the future will take. I am doing no such thing.

    My belief is this: The system set up by the founders was designed to reflect the will of the people, and ANY minority trying to hijack it will find the nation ungovernable. The Republican error of the post-Reagan era has been in thinking that you don’t need a majority of the people to govern. It can work briefly, but not perpetually, if only because the electorate changes with time. You can game the system to seize control, as they have twice in this century alone, but it didn’t end well the first time and it didn’t even begin well this time.

    If the system fails at this, then the American experiment in self-government ends — any government by minority is by definition not government by the people. People love to compare the US to Rome, forgetting that the Roman Republic fell centuries before the Roman Empire.

    I think in terms of probabilities. Nothing is certain, but some things are more likely than others. Your scenario includes several low-probability predictions; the only time you played the chalk was on the GOP not impeaching (though even there, you seem to ignore the likelihood that, at some point approaching the midterms, turning against Trump might be the smart strategy for GOP candidates; already they are turning to Romney as a fund-raiser.)

    You are entitled to play Eeyore if that’s how you see it, but this attitude is the least effective strategy I’ve encountered. Resistance means, you know, resisting this attitude as much as anything else. Hopelessness is surrender.

  34. anonymous redux says:

    anti-brexit voters were young? no shit. but in this country young people did not vote in numbers that would defeat trump, and a lot of them seem reluctant to make compromises that might be necessary to get traction for their agenda. but if the brits can work around these problems maybe it can happen here, after a few lessons learned.

  35. anonymous redux says:

    more on corbyn. I’d personally rather have scandinavian-style socialism than what seems to be his more rigid and extreme version. but much better than brexit (or trump). like I said, compromise can be necessary.