Sun Tzu, The Art of War,

In reflecting on past Democratic political campaigns, it seemed that many of the candidates had never heard of the wisdom of a general of ancient China whose works are still required reading in many military academies. Too often, Democrats and progressive have let Republicans not just define the terms of the debate but have failed to present their stories and vision of the country and the world. Equally as bad, too often these stories and for what candidates stand were related in ways that seemed passionless and distant from voters. Thus, the Republican Party has been able to win time and time again – even when only a minority of Americans shares their positions.

In Paul Waldman’s book, "Being Right Is Not Enough - What Progressives Must Learn from Conservative Success", the veteran political analyst looks at why progressive causes have suffered politically – and more importantly how progressives can redefine the terms of the debate, build a lasting progressive coalition to achieve long term goals, and elect progressive candidates to political office. While polls show that progressives win on such issues as the environment, corporate responsibility, health care, racial and gender equality, and the environment, progressives must learn that voters tend to respond more to emotions than to details on the issues. Perception of a candidate’s strength of resolve and character can matter greatly – once John Kerry failed to counter the portrayal of his record as that of a flip flopper, he was seen as weak and indecisive.

Waldman argues that unlike conservatives, liberals have failed to create a master narrative to frame their arguments calling for tax cuts to top sending tax dollars to bureaucrats wasting your money on needless programs in some office inside the Beltway in Washington, D.C. In making this argument, conservatives have defined taxes as an evil, called bureaucrats wasteful, and slammed both government programs and Washington, D.C. Progressives can counter this by saying that conservative tax cuts overwhelmingly benefit the upper one percent of Americans, including millionaire dividend clippers who lay by their swimming pools while the rest of us hard-working, middle class Americans are trying to make ends meet. Progressives can also talk about programs that help people like the Food and Drug Administration, things that serve the interest of everyone and not just elitists who fly around in private planes and go to one of eight homes owned by their millionaire spouses. (Hello, Senator McCain, your trying to portray a guy who just paid off his student loans a few years back as an elitist is a stretch for a guy who has eight homes to live in – including one with a private lake.) Can we afford tax cuts for millionaires, billionaires and corporations that ship American jobs out of the country when the GOP has run the national debt into the stratosphere. Words matter. Narratives matter.

One thing that also matters is HOW you argue your points. Waldman wrote that Democrats often seem obsessed with arguing based on what Aristotle in his Rhetoric calls logos: arguments based on fact, reason and knowledge. Sometimes, I have grumbled when Democrats present multi-point plans for a solution In contrasts, Republicans tend to argue basedon what Aristotle called pathos, emotional appeals, and ethos, appeals based on a speaker’s character. Aristotle himself wrote “It is not true, as some writers assume in their treatises on rhetoric, that the personal goodness revealed by the speaker contributes nothing to the power of persuasion; on the contrary, his character may almost be called the most effective means of persuasion he possesses.”

We can see this in many ways. Generals Wesley Clark, General Anthony Zinni and Congressman Jack Murtha of Pennsylvania speak out against the war in Iraq and the ongoing occupation, they bring to their arguments their collective experience in the military. Murtha also brings to the table years as a supporter of the military and veterans. This gives them an advantage with many people, as they are seen as experts on military affairs and combat veterans. Similarly, members of Combatants for Peace, veterans of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict who now advocate for non-violence and a two state solution, bring their experiences to the table, showing that men and women who once targeted each other through gun sites can stand together and be advocates for peace. (My friend Mollykolly interviewed two membesr of Combatants for Peace last year as part of an episode of Talk ‘N Action at the Unfiltered News Network. You can download the program if you wish.)

It is also possible to craft a persona to give an image of credibility. Few people have been more successful at this than George W. Bush. Karl Rove and Bush’s others handlers took a Texas governor – a weak official in the Texas Constitution – who had a record of approving many executions and relatively few accomplishments, and portrayed him as a “compassionate conservative,” a friendly, Texas cowboy who was portrayed as someone people could have a beer with. (We should recall that George W. Bush record has not been compassionate, his ranch has no animals bigger than his bets, and he was born in New Haven, Connecticut. Bush, as a recovering alcoholic, should not have beer. Nor, based on what we have seen, should he eat pretzels or ride a bicycle – let alone both at the same time.)

This year, the Democrats have a candidate who knows how to argue based on ethos: Barack Obama. His speeches not only have stories that listeners can relate to, he also weaves in the fabric of his life to establish himself as someone who is qualified to talk on a particular issue. His experiences like those of John Edwards, gives him additional credibility to talk on some issues.


Consider Barack Obama’s 2004 Democratic National Convention Speech.







Also, consider Barack Obama’s speech “A More Perfect Union” in which he addressed the issue of race in America delivered early this year after the Reverend Wright controversy.




Furthermore, Barack Obama understands something that Michael Dukakis and John Kerry did not understand – you have to be willing to argue based on appeals to ethos and to fight against outrageous accusations. Conservatives have framed progressives as out of touch with common people and policy wonks whose values and interests do not match those of ordinary Americans. Yes, conservatives – who argue for tax cuts for billionaires and less corporate accountability – argue that it is progressives who are the elitists. They argue that progressives do not share the values of ordinary Americans.

To quote Waldman, “Electoral success isn’t about plans, it isn’t about résumés, it isn’t about experience, and it isn’t about ideas. It’s about connection on an emotional level through ethos and pathos - how people feel about, a candidate, and how they make them feel about themselves.”

Additionally, Waldman argues that Democrats need to stand up to outrageous statements by conservatives. He gives the example of Rove’s statement that Democrats wanted to offer therapy and understanding to the perpetrators of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Democrats should have challenged this statement by calling it beyond the pale of honest, reasonable political discourse. They did not, but instead tried to show that they too, like the Republicans, are tough on terrorists. This only feed into the perception of Democrats having to react to the agenda set by the Republicans.

We should remember the words of Samuel Johnson: “Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.” I would truly love to hear Senator Obama or another leading Democrat use this phrase or one like it to condemn those who act as if one party alone has a monopoly on patriotism and that Democrats do not fight and die in our nation’s wars.

Fortunately, Obama has set up Fight the Smears to counter the remarks sent his way. Similarly, there was outrage among progressives and others for the recent remarks by Michael Reagan about putting live grenades in the butts of babies who have names such as Hezbollah. Such speech and that of Karl Rove should be utterly condemned as remarks unworthy for American political discourse, and comparable to the diatribes of past and present dictatorships. Progressives need to show strength in the face of such statements, being willing to fight such outrages when they occur and to have the courage to stand for their positions, even if it is politically unpopular at the moment.

Waldman is similarly critical of the corporate media that too often is afraid to challenge leaders on issues, and often fall back on reporting two sides of an issue – even if one side makes a case that has no bearing in fact or is in fact a lie. For too many, a sound byte or an image of toughness or skill at spinning a story is more impressive than discussing an issue in depth.

Waldman also argues that there needs to be a progressive movement, independent of party and candidate who will hold candidates accountable for their actions. In addition to stand up for their convictions on such issues as universal healthcare – even if it takes years of work – we have to be willing as progressives to have candidates answer the following questions that Waldman suggest we ask of candidates who want our support:



Waldman wrote that we also need to ask these questions of ourselves. The journey ahead is not easy. Yet we must remember that a movement is not a single man or woman. We should be inspired by the greatness and goodness of such titans as Harriett Tubman, Frederick Douglas, Susan B. Anthony, Mother Jones, Doctor Martin Luther King, Jr., Medgar Edgars, Cesar Chavez and so many others. Often, those who advocated for a more progressive America, a more progressive world, faced ridicule, harassment, threats and violence. Yet we have come to where we are today not just by the actions of the famous but by many whose names may never be known to history.

The Talmud advises that if someone claims the Messiah has come while you are planting a tree, finish planting the tree and then go great the Messiah. It is up to us, in our own ways, to continue planting the seeds and tending the trees of a progressive movement that will build a more just, equitable, and better world. The work may well be one of not just one, but several lifetimes. Yet for the naysayers who ask whether we can build a better world, let us say with Senator Barack Obama and Cesar Chavez and all those who have gone before them, famous or unknown, “YES, WE CAN!!!”