Reagan's "principles" were well articulated when he and CIA Casey created the world wide Muchahadim to fight the Russians in Afghanistan, who were sucked in by Carter/Brzezinski's destabilization of its government - welcome to the wages of such nefarious principles, ditto for the "contras" in Nicaragua; ditto for de-regulation which eventuates in an endless series of bubbles and busts and 50 million impoverished Americans, ex-welfare queens all. What a principled way of using the word "principle" !! http://www.facebook.com/mike.roloff1?ref=name

Wrong on all counts. Dems should ask instead what FDR or Huey Long would have done. They had principles, too.

Uninformed, shallow, superficial claptrap like this article is why I find myself coming to Crosscut less and less.

"Pick some principles that relate to the outcome you want first, and then put some facts underneath them."

You mean as in 'the end justifies the means'?

Doesn't yesterday's vote make it clear that the people are sick and tired of unprincipled politicians who do just what you suggest they should do?

Even though I'm not very old yet, I have noticed in my lifetime an increasing importance ascribed to the emotional state of the public. The BBC entertainer Charlie Brooker sees the death of Princess Diana as being the turning point in this regard. In the 2010 election, the most important issue was not health care reform or "the economy", but that voters were dissatisfied. Whether politicians "get it" is one of the key litmus tests, much as anti-communism was a half century ago. The same was true two years ago, when desire for change was the main issue.

But this only creates the illusion of an emotional connection. In reality, that connection is mediated through pundits and reporters, who do as much to manufacture public emotion as to report it.

I don't know either how to navigate the situation. But it's clear that when Democrats have attempted to copy Republican tactics this year, such as trying to stir up populist resentment or playing the "I get it" game, the results have been comical at best.

I greatly admire this piece.

Roger Valdez, at Crosscut, has stated my own feelings better than I could. The "left" lacks leadership. Valdez praises Reaganesque devotion to " principles, stating them simply and clearly over and over again, recruiting candidates who have an unalloyed belief in those principles, and doing politics in an emotionally intelligent way."

The question is, where are our charismatic figures, our Reagans and our Palins? How is it that our current President with his obvious intellect can not translate his ideals into political leadership?

The problem is not, however, Mr. Obama's alone. Where the right hears a well sung country song, we have a cacophony, dozens of voices that vociferously fight for different agendas. The general public can not respond to a cacophony.

Valdez argues that the problem is not a lack of support for science and real politic as opposed to creationism and lack of belief in basic truths of modern economics. He argues that the charisma of Reagan was more important than the poverty of her ideas.

Put another way, can rational policies sell? The public can not support the rational left no matter how good Christine Gregoire, Dow Constantine or Maria Cantwell are at understanding the complexities of government. This question is not just important on the John Stewart Daily Show. Who in Washington State speaks for the progressives? Have Rossi, Hastings and the Tea Party appropriated the term "American values?"

Jim McDermitt could be a better leader, he certainly has Reaganesque simplicity about him, but McDermitt is an old man and at his best was not Reagan. Worse, Jim seems unable to understand the importance of local politics. Today's McDermitt is as distant from the leadership of Seattle Democrats as Warren Magnuson now is.

Who do we have who can provide leadership. There is potential. Patty Murry, has become very good at local politics. Could she take a bigger role?

cross posted at The Ave (handbill.us)

Steve Schwarts
Professor of Pathology, UW
Editor, THE-Ave.us

I presume this author is at least 10 years younger than I am to wax nostalgic about the Reagan era. I was living abroad at the time and for me that was the 'point of no return' -- I still live outside the US. It was Reagan who sunk family farms into debt beyond any ability to pay it back, if you musos remember 'Farm-aid'. It was Reagan who let the christian fundamentalists in so that republicans never need worry about votes. It was, for me, the beginning of the dumbing down of the USA.

I'm with Ivan, if the democrats want to find some inspiration from past leaders, looking to Republicans is a loosing game. Huey Long and FDR had principles worth articulating. The current crop of Dem's & Rep's are beholden to the money that brings them to the election. Until that changes we don't have much hope for a people's agenda.

But there is hope, we're going to have two years of total grid lock which in this economy means it's going to get a lot worse.

The "confidence" on the Right is just part of a "con-game" that plays on the childish desire in all of us to have our cake and eat it too - something that is totally devoid of "principal."

Look at the Conservative economic model: less spending, lower taxes, no debt, and yet somehow everyone can still have everything they want. Free ice-cream and donkeys, without ever getting fat or having to use a shovel.

Yes, liberal and progressives have a tendency to be too wonky and deal too often in details - but isn't being honest more "principled" than promising what you know you can't deliver?

There is little to indicate that those on the left are, as a class, more intellectual. In fact, the opposite is typically true. Modern liberals tend to advocate policies that make themselves feel good but frequently have little (or at least little positive) effect on the problem at hand. In the Seattle area, liberal ideas are popular and seldom questioned. But one does not build intellectual rigor in defending what's popular. It's the outliers, those who are unpopular, who develop the intellectual rigor to analyze their views. You'll never have your intellect tested talking "progressive" politics in Belltown.

The fact is that the left believes that government is the solution of first recourse, and that government is capable of solving most if not all problems, and that the natural sweep of history is for societies to become more and more socialistic. They believe that people, left to their own devices, will behave badly unless those people hold government office. Then they will magically become fonts of virtue and enlightenment. Government, under such a philosophy, will continue to grow and grow until its expense (both in dollar terms and in inefficiencies introduced into society and the economy) become unbearable. At some point, government growth must stop or there will be nothing left to tax. This is finally dawning on the people of Europe. Yet the American left wants to keep traveling down Heyak's Road to Serfdom.

If the left wants long-term relevance, they need to focus on those things that government does best, not on everything that it's possible for government to meddle in. Maybe then, they can come up with the pithy slogans the author yearns for.

Seattle Observer, you wrote: "Doesn't yesterday's vote make it clear that the people are sick and tired of unprincipled politicians who do just what you suggest they should do?"

If people were sick of that, why would they vote for the Republicans? I think this election shows Mr. Valdez is right: control the message, lie through your teeth, and you will win. After all, that's how Obama won in 2008. He said 'change change change' over and over again.

Not to rat on the guy, he's done a lot (see this site, pardon the French in the url: http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/ ), but people don't want moderate reforms. They want a hero on a white horse with a flaming sword that will tell them America kicks ass. Welcome to 21st Century politics.

"here is little to indicate that those on the left are, as a class, more intellectual"

No but there are plenty of observations that those on the right, have gathered in their tent the group that believes God created the earth about 6,000 years ago. Which according to science is nonsense.

As for government doing what it does best, that's open for discussion on many points. For instance we can see that private health insurance has a tendency to maximize profits at the expense of individuals health. And that unregulated banks have a tendency to maximize profit by socializing the risk and privatizing the profit.

But it's pretty clear from the Russian experiment that Government does a poor job of food production when they remove all the individual incentive to make a profit. Same for cars.

True enough. But there are plenty of crackpots to go around; the right has not cornered the market in that regard. The fact that there are things that government does well is exactly why there should be such a discussion. The left is the obvious movement to lead this discussion because they are the "party of government." But if they insist on merely increasing the size and scope of government reflexively they will, inevitably, fail. The money will run out.

I personally, prefer a divided government. I like a Democratic President cuz they're more likable on the world's stage. And I like a Republican Congress. Cuz I want adults in charge of the check book.

Yesterday's swing of the pendulum was predictable and hardly surprising. Obama and the Democrats spent two years pushing an agenda that was largely out of step with what I believe is the fundamental issue of greatest concern to most Americans - economic sustainability. (Not that jobs and house foreclosures aren't important, but they are largely symptoms of the underlying problem.) Most Americans understand that our way of life is in jeopardy unless we can address the Republican and Democratic addiction to deficit spending. The Republicans won because they weren't Democrats, not because they had answers - hence their reluctance to gloat Tuesday night. I'm an independent that has probably voted Democrat 95% of the time for close to 40 years, but if there is one thing the Tea Party is right-on about it is the need to address our huge and growing deficits. The Democrats seem unable or unwilling to acknowledge or address the problem and the Republicans to date are offering only rhetoric. The rhetoric won Tuesday.

Democrats and Republicans have saddled us, our children and grandchildren with an unbelievable amount of debt. It is stifling economic growth. In the last decade, we took on two wars which by conservative estimates have cost us in excess of $1.3 trillion AND cut taxes! Insane. I support the concept of health care reform, but I think most American's are very concerned about the cost - estimated at some $1 trillion - and are asking can we afford it now? Especially, since virtually everyone agrees it contains few cost controls.

European government's have been forced to deal with the harsh realities of deficit spending. I believe it will be America's turn next. Obama appointed a bi-partisan commission which will offer a blueprint for addressing the issue later this year. Everyone knows the solution is some mix of raising taxes AND cutting spending. And, there is no way that reductions won't have to be the larger of the two.

I think this issue and how each party chooses to address it will decide the presidential election in 2012.

Valdez is right. If you want to win, you control the message. The Dems have not done that for a long time, and we will continue losing as long as we think it's more important to sound rational and principled and complex than it is to stay on message and win elections.

I'd be very interested to see polling on how many of Tuesday's votes were actually votes against rather than votes for. I am getting extremely tired of our current two-party system, and wonder how "neither of the above" would have fared if it had been a third option on the ballot.