George Lakoff has repeatedly stressed the “framing deficit” with which progressives are constantly struggling.  Whether it was before last November’s election, during the lame duck Congressional session, or now with the 112^th Congress, President Barack Obama has consistently talked about and pursued a strategy of being bi-partisan.

This means that the range of cooperation stretches from Obama’s moderate positions to the very conservative views of most Republicans.

When Obama reaches to the right, the term “bi-partisan” is very apropos.  But should he reach to the left, what word comparable to “bi-partisan” would describe his actions?

Progressives are handicapped because we don’t have a word or simple phrase that would simply describe a president reaching out to the members of his or her own party who form its base.

The word “basism” might work except (a) there is no such word, and (b) even if there was, it would be very awkward.

I recently asked readers of the Daily Kos if they could help provide new or fresh language that describes a moderate Democrat taking steps to cooperate with the progressive base of the party. Here are some of the best responses.  Let me know what you think of them; as progressives we definitely need to improve our framing skills.

• “Hit a dinger” as in hit a home run.  This would simply mean touching home base as in connecting with the progressive base that played such a vital role in electing him.  He wouldn’t have to do it all the time; even the best home run sluggers in baseball hit dingers less than 10% of the time.  This may be about 9% more often than the president really is representing a progressive point of view.

• Perhaps a more appropriate term with a similar meaning would be “touch base.”

• Basically, it’s called “playing to the base.”  When Republicans win elections…they play to their hard-core activist base. When Democrats win elections, they play to…the Republican base. There is never a time when either political party gives any respect whatsoever to the activist base of the Democratic Party (except for empty rhetoric by Democrats during campaign season).

In other words, the problem in this particular case is not so much “framing” as it is action and leadership. Democrats who refuse to take action and leadership on behalf of the very people most responsible for getting them elected…are simply not acting in the best interests of their base. That needs to change if the Democrats ever plan to get my vote again (after 25+ years as an activist and contributor, the 2010 election has almost completely convinced me to stop wasting my time on Democrats).

• I know this isn’t a single word, but if you are reading Lakoff as I do, this is what “reaching out to the progressive base” would require.  To him, there is no “center”, there are only conservatives, progressives and what he calls “bi-conceptuals” who have both progressive and conservative approaches to different issues and areas of their lives.  Lakoff stresses that progressives have to use speech that activates the progressive frame and avoid using speech that activates the conservative frames.  Obama succeeded in activating a lot of progressive frames in his SOTU speech, and made a declaration of what he stands for.

• Also, since the progressive position on many an issue is generally not only the most sensible, but the most popular, why not call it the “mainstream” position?  Take that label back from artificial centrism.

And some other short ones:

• “Limited modified liberalism?” [Apologies to RM Nixon’s “limited, modified hangout”]?

• Liberal-ish-ness?

• Liberal-lite?

• Progressive-ish?
• None of these are really alternatives to “bi-partisan,” so I’ll have to try a little harder…I like your “basism” idea, but it sounds dangerously close to “racism,” which wouldn’t go over too well if people didn’t listen carefully.

• Outreach to progressives

• Reality-based strategy

• Keeping faith with progressives

• Partisanship

• Integrity

• Enlightenment

• Honesty

• Liberalization

Thanks to everyone who offered their thoughts.  I’m open to more; you can add comments to this post or go to our on-line poll.

Quite seriously, I can think of nothing that would put more healthy pressure on the president to give greater consideration to the interests of his base than, if every time he was asked about being bi-partisan, he was also asked about “touching base.”  Bi-partisan cooperation on the health care bill meant being sensitive to the Republican’s desire for little or no change (as represented by their nearly unanimous votes against the Patient Protection and Affordability Act).  Touching base would have meant giving serious consideration to Medicare for All.  Then a compromise between the interests of Republicans and the Democratic base would have been something like the public option.

The president ceded the public option without getting anything in return.  It might not have been so easy had we been better at insisting that he “touch base” besides being bi-partisan.

The strength of the president’s base in Congress is much weaker now than it was in the 111^th Congress.  However, by acknowledging the presence of his base as well as that of Republicans, he will help both himself and other Democrats in the 2012 election because it is the base that gives Democrats their identity.

The post President Obama needs to touch base more often appeared first on Occasional Planet.

It’s no longer a surprise that most progressives have come to the conclusion that if President Barack Obama was ever a progressive, he is not one now.  Among the suggestions that have been offered for the president is that he reconstitute the inner circle of his staff.

Geithner, Summers, Emanuel, Vilsack, Orszag, individuals who progressives are happy to have seen leave the administration or hoping that they’re shown the way to the door in short order.

Progressives want individuals who have minimal corporate ties, are not conventional politicians, think outside the box, and most importantly, will stand firm on liberal principles.  This doesn’t mean that there won’t be compromise, but that when it occurs there is a quid pro quo.  No more of the “give-aways” like the public option or continuing tax cuts for the wealthy.  If the Republicans and remaining Blue Dogs in the Democratic Party want something from the president, he must insist on getting something of equal or greater value from them.  His staff for the first two years of his administration has been of little help in this regard.

So who might be individuals who could offer President Obama sound advice and improve his skills in the game theory of negotiations?   I’d like to suggest the following people:

• Morris Dees; co-founder and chief trial counsel for Southern Poverty Law Center
• Barbara Ehrenreich; author, advocate for working poor
• Christine Fair; prof Georgetown U; counterinsurgency analyst
• Thomas Friedman; columnist, New York Times
• Naomi Klein; author, political activist
• Ted Koppel, retired foreign correspondent for ABC News and host of “Nightline.”
• Paul Krugman; columnist, New York Times
• George Lakoff; professor of linguistics, University of California, Berkeley
• Michael Moore; author and film-maker
• Bill Moyers; journalist, public commentator, former special assistant to Pres. Lyndon Johnson
• Robert Reich; professor of public policy, U-Cal, Berkeley, author, former Sec. of Labor (Clinton)
• Shirley Sherrod, former Georgia state director of Rural Development for USDA
• Norman Solomon; journalist, media critic, anti-war activist
• Ted Turner; founder CNN; philanthropist; former owner, Atlanta Braves
• Elizabeth Warren; professor of Law, Harvard; administrator, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

These individuals have a lot in common, most of which are strengths.  Collectively there is not enough diversity in the group; there need to be more minorities, women, and younger individuals.

One significant factor that they all have in common is that none of them is currently an elected official.  That’s important because President Obama weakened the ranks of Democrats in the Senate by selecting sitting senators to leave their positions to join the Cabinet such as Hillary Clinton and Ken Salizar.  This is most significant; think of how the health care discussion and resolution could have gone differently had Hillary Clinton still been in the Senate, particularly after the death of Ted Kennedy.  There are plenty of qualified advisors to call upon without drawing down the ranks of progressives in another branch of government.

Most of the individuals in the group are familiar with corporate America, but to our knowledge, none have connections that would put them in a position to suggest public policy that would be for their personal gain.  If you’ve seen the movie Inside Job, you can tell how compromised Larry Summers was in the White House.  Tim Geithner was a regulator who didn’t regulate; Rahm Emanuel was way too much of an insider’s insider.

So please share with us your thoughts on our suggestions for new staff.  You may want to add your own names, feel free to do so in the comment section below.  This is a terrific opportunity for us to be positive in carrying out a key item in the Occasional Planet’s orbit: “Progressive viewpoints and creative thinking on issues and events.”  Bill Clinton showed that a president can recover in years three and four of his administration; Barack Obama can do so as well, but he will not only need a little help from his friends; he’ll need some new friends.

For a similar perspective on President Obama and his advisors, you can read Robert Reich of Tuesday, December 7, 2010.

The post President Obama needs some new friends in the White House appeared first on Occasional Planet.

“The choice is not doing or communicating. It is doing and communicating” I wish these words were mine, but they belong to George Lakoff, the guru for progressives in properly framing our language so that conservatives don’t mis-define the landscape.

Lakoff is talking about President Obama’s response to the oil rig disaster in the Gulf, particularly in the president’s press conference on Thursday, May 27.

Lakoff summarizes the president’s narrative this way: This is a tough, unprecedented situation, but I’m in charge, and I’ve been very busy, in the Situation Room where I belong, not on TV. I’m fully competent. I’m a good policy wonk – ask me any question about details. I’m honest. I admit my few policy mistakes. I think about the details day and night. Don’t think I’m oblivious.

Lakoff goes on to state:

It’s not that he said nothing to tie them together.  But there was no home run, no unifying narrative, no patriotic call to the nation on the full gamut of issues. Instead, there were only hints, suggestions, possible implications, notes of concern – as if he had been intimidated by the right-wing message machine.

And yet Obama, of all political leaders, could have done it, because he did before in his campaign.

The central idea is Empathy. Democracy is based on empathy, on people caring about one another and acting to the very best of their ability on that care, for their families, their communities, their nation, and the world. Government must also care and act on that care. Government’s job is to protect and empower its citizens.

Every president brings his (or hopefully her) comfort zones into the White House.  President Obama is cerebral and has been methodically trying to solve a problem that unfortunately is largely out of his control.  But Lakoff is concerned about perception, and that’s where the president has fallen short.  Consider what actions the previous two Democratic presidents have taken in showing their connection to the American people and that they care:

Bill Clinton had ways of sharing people’s tears; of emoting in ways that others did.  Perhaps the best example of this was after the Oklahoma City bombing.  While Clinton mounted an organized (and successful) effort to address the immediate problem of capturing the perpetrators, he connected with Americans by sharing their outrage, despair, and desire to “end the madness.”

While Jimmy Carter seemed aloof at times and not always in touch with the “heartbeat of America,” he did something that may well have been the “home run” that Lakoff and others felt was necessary and missing so far from President Obama’s response.  As president, Carter continued something he had done as a candidate: actually staying in the homes of regular American citizens.  He shared dinner and breakfast with them; talked about what was on their minds and on his.

When President Obama went to south Louisiana on Friday, May 28, he spent only a few hours there.  He didn’t go out into the most distressed areas, in the Bayou marsh.  He also did not pick up on the advice of pundits and perhaps advisors that he follow Jimmy Carter’s example and arrange to stay with people who were suffering from the effects of the rig explosion and oil leak.  Bill Clinton said and could act as if he could “feel your pain.”  While we can’t expect Barack Obama to emote in ways that seem contrived to him, he might have taken the step of staying with a family that makes its living off the economy of the Gulf Coast and that is now in distress.

Lakoff tried to paraphrase president’s thoughts as “I’ve been very busy, in the Situation Room where I belong, not on TV. I’m fully competent. I’m a good policy wonk. I’m honest.”  While Lakoff is somewhat critical of Obama’s priorities, the president’s commitment to studying and implementing policy is one of his characteristics that I admire most.  He is doing his “day job,” and as citizens of the United States, we are entitled to expect him to do that.  Parenthetically, this is why it is extremely irritating to me when he leaves the White House to (sometimes semi-surreptitiously) attend fund-raisers for candidates or the party.  It borders on shameful (though probably necessary in the absence of campaign finance reform) for the president to shill for money.

As the president does his day job, I wonder about others who have become darlings of the media during the oil rig disaster.  Billy Nungesser is president of Plaquemines Parish (County) in Louisiana.  It is almost as if he came from central casting as the south Louisiana insider; I’m almost expecting him to take John Goodman’s place on “Treme” next week.  But he does a great job of expressing a reasoned outrage about what has happened, with most of his ire directed at BP.  I see him doing interviews with Anderson Cooper (his favorite) and others from CNN, as well as virtually every other cable and broadcast news outlet .  It’s hard to imagine anyone describing the situation more vividly than Billy Nungesser.  But at the end of the day when he’s doing his final interview with Anderson, I have to ask myself, “What did he do in his day job today?”  While he has apparently become good friends with Barack Obama, at times he appears to be the “anti-Barack,” because he is “feeling others pain” while the President is trying to devise solutions to take away people’s pain.  Too bad they can’t be melded.

Another is Coast Guard Commandant Thad Allen.  He seems to be extremely competent and committed to ensuring that the federal government is doing everything that it can to keep the government’s “boot on BP’s neck,” while using much more delicate language.  He was widely praised for his work in response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005.  But with the BP disaster, he seems to be on television so much that he might be out of the information loop. In fact, he was in the dark when BP suspended its “top kill” approach to plugging the leak on the first day of the effort.

So as it might be advisable for President Obama to see if he can spend more time with more citizens in the Gulf Region, it might be good for Billy Nungesser and Thad Allen to hold one press conference a day for all media representatives and then perhaps a single one-to-one interview with someone like Anderson Cooper.  When it’s 2:00  in the afternoon, I’d feel better knowing that they are doing their “day jobs,” as is the president.

None of this is easy.  JFK called courage “grace under pressure,” which is what he exhibited during the Cuban missile crisis.  But that grace may have been learned from his failure during the Bay of Pigs.  We all have our good moments and our not so good ones.  Let’s have empathy for all who are sincerely trying to improve the situation, but no one should be immune from a little outside critiquing.

The post Managing a crisis while everyone is looking appeared first on Occasional Planet.