Democracy in Progress

We're Moving!

2005-10-25T07:38:00.000-06:00

We've moved to Typepad to upgrade our blogging technology. You can find us at democracyinprogress.org.

Strategic Breakdown, Part 2

2005-10-23T07:36:00.000-06:00

Why is Colorado failing to make the strategic transportation investments necessary to keep its costs low in the long-term? To a great extent, it's a failure to communicate, especially a failure to impress the public with its ownership responsibilities in the transportation system.

We live in a Representative Democracy, where in principle we elect representatives whom we trust for two or four years to manage the state's finances wisely. But there are several problems with this picture:

First, the public is not so willing to trust politicians, and politicians are not even asking for their trust. It's evident with financial scandals like those of Tom DeLay, and with the constant ideological and personal battles that have little to do with government's responsibilities to its citizens. The message is that politicians don't feel accountable, so the public assumes they are not.

Second, we have much better mechanisms today than ever before, to involve citizens in decision making and accountability processes, using the internet, but haven't taken advantage of them. This is not to advocate a movement to direct democracy, but to merely keep the public better-informed of how its government is doing. A few high-tech innovations such as freeway cameras are becoming widespread, but more prosaic and useful tools such as financial and performance statements have not been used to good advantage in Colorado. When the public doesn't see the kind of periodic reporting that is common in private businesses, it assumes there is something to hide.

Third, the state government is too darn big. Not in the sense of doing too much, but in the sense of being inaccessible to its citizens, further perpetuating the notion that it isn't accountable. It has been widely observed that tax increases are much more successful at the local level than at the state level, and this may be largely because voters feel better able to monitor things at the local level. Gary Hart has written extensively on this aspect of human nature and how it influenced Jeffersonian ideals of small units of representative government.

Fourth, there is no visible evidence of competition and no obvious effort to benefit from competition. There is no reporting and comparison of public and private sector performance, so the public assumes it's because the public sector is inferior. Families dislike the cost of transportation regardless of whether it goes into public or private hands, but they do trust competition as a means of keeping costs as low as possible. We in Colorado misunderstand this concern as a desire to do everything in the private sector, rather than as a desire to have the most effective possible competition. We in the Democratic Party argue that the public sector has some distinct advantages in transportation for good theoretical reasons, but we don't back up that belief with actual public-private competition and quality public reporting of how it went.

Fifth, state government doesn't "feel our pain." It gives no evidence that it cares about the same things we do. It focuses on isolated locations in the transportation network, rather than the overall need to get us from one place to another. Instead of strategies to reduce the traffic that causes traffic jams, it builds big projects that cause even bigger traffic jams and doesn't fix the stupid little things we see every day. It wastes our time and doesn't give us choices that would allow us to take some responsibility for our own commute. It doesn't explain its decisions in a way we can understand and evaluate. It involves the public in project level decisions but not the more momentous network level decisions. It doesn't even pretend to make efficient long-term decisions that minimize our taxes. While local officials take care of business, state officials play political games in the media, at least that's the common perception.

Of all the many activities of government, transportation is arguably the leader in developing scientific tools for measuring its efficiency and effectiveness. But it's a well-kept secret. Politicians assume it's too complicated to explain to the public (which is both untrue and disrespectful), and they assume it's a patronage mess (which is self-fulfilling). Too often, politicians don't want their performance measured because, in fact, they think they do have something to hide. The public picks up on this easily.

What we need, then, is what's known in the business world as transparency. If leaders aren't afraid of exposure and accountability, then they will earn the trust of the voters.

Strategic Breakdown Part 1

2005-10-16T08:28:00.000-06:00

Count me as one of those people who thinks Colorado government isn't always as efficient as it should be, but for reasons opposite what many people believe. Our state is inefficient not because it spends too much, but because it spends too little on a number of strategic programs.

Take highway maintenance, for one example. Colorado spends nearly nothing on preventive maintenance for the $100 billion inventory of transportation assets owned by state and local government. Following capital asset reinvestment guidelines accepted worldwide, it should be spending about $1.5 billion every year in combined Federal, state, and local maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, and replacement to keep its roads and bridges in service at minimal life cycle cost. In the private sector, if a firm were to fail so miserably to reinvest in itself, it would be considered to have a limited future. As facilities deteriorate past the optimal maintenance schedule, they become very expensive to keep in service, making the enterprise unsustainable.

The Colorado Department of Transportation goes out each summer and applies cosmetic treatments like chip seals, that do little more than paint over the cracks. These actions are all it can afford, but they are worse than doing nothing, because they hide the enormous problems and future costs building up under our tires.

In spite of its massive transportation component, Referendum D will do little to make Colorado's transportation network more sustainable. It takes care of some very important large replacement projects, and adds capacity in critical places to reduce congestion. Those investments certainly deserve voter approval. But the long-term problem of a sustainable transportation network — the strategic breakdown — isn't addressed.

Budget-cutting is the worst possible solution to the strategic breakdown. Long-term investments are the easiest to cut, because they are long-term; no one complains. There is no incentive in a budget-cutting environment to plan for the future, no political payoff to invest $1 now to save $10 ten years from now.

Yet, the private sector has no solution either. There are private firms out there who are eager to take over the management of facilities that are relatively new, happy to sign a contract of typically five years' duration to take care of a road with relatively few needs. When T-Rex is finished, it will be a prime candidate. But there are no firms out there willing to take on the maintenance of an average Colorado road network for a significant chunk of its useful life, typically 20 years for pavements and 75 years for bridges. When the full life cycle costs are factored in, the cost of such a contract would make the public faint with sticker shock, because it would be far more than we are spending now.

Average roads are highly variable in the problems they present, and private firms are much less able than the government to handle such risks. Factor in the costs of risk mitigation, marketing, and profit, and private firms trying this in other states haven't been any less expensive than the state's own employees, even when the private firms are non-unionized. From my own personal experience working in this industry, state transportation agencies — at least, those which are adequately funded — are making much better use of technology than private firms do in optimizing the long-term maintenance plan. This includes all types of technology, from equipment, to materials, to data processing. Moreover, state forces are more flexible and accountable to the public, and they don't charge a fortune for change orders.

But the problem we have in Colorado is that the voters don't trust state employees to work efficiently. I believe this stems in large part from state government's failure to prove to the voters that it is efficient. Yesterday's Rocky tried to make the state's case, but it was a very weak presentation due to lack of evidence. Next weekend I'll present a program of improvements — relatively low cost but high value — in the way the state runs its transportation program, that will help the public to gain some insight, trust, and feeling of ownership that is necessary if the public is to be willing to invest in its roads and bridges.

Coming to a Decision

2005-10-09T07:35:00.000-06:00

A very interesting day yesterday at our local Safeway, contacting voters about Referenda C and D. People are starting to pay attention. It's just in time, since ballots are being mailed. I was impressed at how many people knew to expect a ballot this week.

I've been out most weekends this fall working on one project or another about Referenda C and D, and before this weekend mostly found people unfamiliar with the measures, even as recently as last weekend's Castle Rock Oktoberfest. A consistent observation was that there were some firm 'yes' and 'no' voters, and some leaning 'yes', but none leaning 'no'. The 'no' voters always seemed very sure of their vote, the 'yes' voters more cautious.

This weekend the reaction is changing. There are still quite a few firm 'no' votes, people who seem to have made up their minds long ago, very often with "W'04" or "it's your dough" bumper stickers. But the percentage of these among Douglas County shoppers hadn't changed from previous weekends. What had changed is the number of firm 'yes' votes, which has decidedly grown.

Most encouraging, however, was the number of people who seemed newly aware of the election, wanted to become informed, had concerns, but took a generally positive attitude. They had seen the 'no' ads on TV, and didn't take them seriously; "a lot of noise pollution," one person said.

I've often been asked by C and D opponents what guarantee there is that the money will be spent in a certain way. I've had to explain that we live in a Representative Democracy and we generally have high expectations of our representatives to work out the budget themselves, try to do a good job of it, and be accountable at the ballot box. It has been this way for more than 200 years. This weekend, I didn't have to explain it as often. More people seemed to understand and respect our Constitution. If we don't have lawmakers we trust, then we need to get better ones, not cripple the state or throw away our Constitution.

When somebody yesterday shouted the predictable "it's our money," a lady commented to me, "of course, it's our government, too". The people I met this weekend were more open than in weekends past in talking about the services they expect from government, their awareness of the cost of those services, and the notion that people often take them for granted. The main cautionary note in this was a comment that people can't tell whether government is operating efficiently or not; all they know is that taxes have gone down and so has the quality of service — and they're not happy about the quality of service. I think people would perceive more of an ownership in their state government if a much better effort were made to measure and report on the government's efficiency and effectiveness: that would be a sign that government respects and is accountable to its owners.

While I was handing out leaflets at the Safeway, a pair from the Knights of Columbus — one a Republican and the other a Democrat — were with me collecting donations for a charity for handicapped children. They commented on Archbishop Chaput's letter in the Rocky Friday endorsing Referenda C and D. Chaput's main rationale was that the state has not been doing its part to help the poor, and Referenda C and D were a much-needed step in the right direction. The pair both agreed. The government has been shirking its responsibility, trying to put it all on the church. This is both unfair and inadequate to do the job. Economic policies that widen the gap between rich and poor, or that raise barriers to upward mobility (such as higher tuition) only make it worse. I hope the Archbishop will take a more vocal role on this even after November, as it has not received anywhere near the discussion it deserves.

This admittedly unscientific survey leaves me optimistic about the prospects for C and D. Now we just need to get people out to vote.

Pride and Paranoia

2005-10-02T12:24:00.000-06:00

A very smart Democrat, an accomplished psychotherapist, sent me an email recently to ask whether I thought it might be counter-productive for a minority party organization to work overtly in favor of a non-partisan issue we support, such as Referenda C and D. I've heard variations on this question before, such as Democratic candidates wanting to run a "stealth" campaign to hide their party affiliation, or Democrats who are eager to work on community projects as long as they are not associated with the Democratic Party, or people who claim that party involvement in any pursuit "politicizes" it.

This question deserves some thought because the argument in favor of this point of view is a good one: Democrats do have a brand image problem. There certainly are people in our community — we've met them — who are unable to look past a party label.

One factor that tends to amplify this concern in a political organization of any party is a tendency toward paranoia. This is analyzed through numerous case studies in the book Political Paranoia: the Psychopolitics of Hatred by Robert Robins and Jerrold Post. Paranoia is not necessarily an illness, but is a human trait existing in all of us at a low level that normally stays underground. However, political organizations and leaders often try to awaken the trait as a way of building a more active support base. This is especially easy in strongly ideological organizations because of the dissonance that already exists between an over-simplified ideological world view and the complexities of the real world. You can find a continuing flow of examples in any conservative or liberal political blog.

I'm not saying that any of the activists of either party are mentally ill, but I am saying that many people are hyper-sensitive to political overtones in everyday life, because it awakens their healthy paranoia, a reflex that is highly developed because it is constantly exercised by political rhetoric. For example, a Democratic parent who is told by a teacher that there will be a unit on the Bible as Literature, might immediately be concerned about the teacher's motives; or a Republican who learns of some change in the tax code might immediately suspect a hidden tax increase. As someone who deals with the general public on a regular basis in a political context, I hear these attitudes on both sides all the time.

I believe that one reason people so often want to hide their party affiliation is that they have experienced the awakening of paranoia, find the sensation unpleasant, and want to avoid doing this to others. They fear that the paranoid impulse might be right, that a political reference might provoke the hostility they fear. I see this in political canvassing operations, where certain people perceive much more hostility from voters than what actually occurred, or may be so fearful of hostility that they refuse to participate even in places where the voters are known to be overwhelmingly friendly or apathetic.

People who are politically active, who are much more exposed to political rhetoric than the general public, are much more susceptible to the paranoid reflex. Put another way, I believe the general public is much less sensitive to party affiliation than we often fear. It's undeniable that in Douglas County a large fraction of voters mark the (R) bubble without ever looking at the candidates further; but it's also undeniable that FastTracks, renewable energy, and Scientific and Cultural Facilities District ballot questions won in Douglas County last year even though heavily promoted by Democrats.

When an organization has a brand image problem, there are really only two viable approaches: either abandon the brand, or work to rehabilitate the brand by addressing its weaknesses and associating it with its positive aspects. Ford chose the first approach with its Edsel, and now that brand name is a distant memory. When Tylenol experienced tampering problems that made it the butt of late night comedy routines for an extended time, the company decided to defend its brand, and succeeded. It responded effectively to the tampering concerns, and focused its advertising on the positive benefits of the medicine.

The Democratic Party has the same kind of choice to make. It can be an Edsel, or a Tylenol. To follow the path of success, it needs to deal frankly with the problems voters perceive, especially excessive ideology and the lack of a pragmatic balance among competing interest groups. Then it needs to associate itself firmly with all of its good works. When we feel strongly about a non-partisan issue, whether it be public transportation, renewable energy, science and culture, open space, gratitude to our troops, curing cancer, helping battered women, aiding hurricane survivors, cultural tolerance, supporting local businesses, or solving the state's financial problems (all issues we've worked on in the past year), we do those issues no favors by hiding the nature of our organization. All of those causes appreciate our support.

At the Relay for Life earlier this year, we were roundly applauded by Republicans and Democrats alike, because we showed up and made a difference. That's what we do. When we're proud of what we do, we attract others to help us, and that makes us more effective.

Fund Raising

2005-09-24T07:15:00.000-06:00

This week Douglas County Democrats joined Senate Majority Leader Ken Gordon and three hard-working helpers for a walk down the length of Douglas County in support of Referenda C and D. It was part of The Colorado Walk, a month-long effort by Gordon to "reduce waist in government" while drawing attention to the urgent ballot measures by walking from the Wyoming to New Mexico borders.

We began Friday evening in Highlands Ranch with a benefit concert for survivors of Hurricane Katrina, which attracted 300 people and provided a very receptive forum for Gordon and Rep. Morgan Carroll to talk about government's proper role. On very short notice Teresa Masterton and Christian Moreau lined up five bands who donated their time to the cause. A substantial amount of money was raised for the Salvation Army.

We noticed at the concert something we've often noticed in Douglas County: when we remove partisan labels but still talk about issues important to Democrats, we get widespread agreement even from mainstream Republicans. We all care about our children and businesses, and we all feel a responsibility to help people on the Gulf Coast to get back on their feet.

Over the following four days, a constantly-changing cadre of concerned citizens followed Sen. Gordon through Highlands Ranch, then to Castle Pines and Castle Rock, through Larkspur and Greenland, and on to Palmer Lake and Monument. For awhile House Speaker Andrew Romanoff joined us with his famous dog, Zorro. We were constantly buoyed by people tooting their horns and giving the "thumbs-up." (Yes, we're sure it was always the thumb!)

With all the fund-raising activity surrounding the hurricane and the ballot measures, we talked about whether we should postpone our own fund-raising dinner, the Fiesta on September 24. We ultimately decided to go ahead as planned. Our fund-raiser for the Salvation Army helped with the immediate needs of the survivors, so now we have to look to the long-term. Our role as an organization is to make sure something like the New Orleans disaster doesn't happen again. This means doing our part to make sure there is political accountability; to elect leaders who believe in the government's moral obligation to protect its citizens and to underwrite its economy and civilization.

It's very difficult to maintain intensity in an odd-numbered year with few announced candidates; but the Democratic Party needs to be strong now, more than ever.

Feed the Beast

2005-09-18T08:05:00.000-06:00

The president cried "uncle" Thursday night on prime-time television, and in so doing has left his "starve the beast" constituency without their main source of nourishment.

Economic fundamentalism has always had a built-in time bomb, the inevitability of a big event that brings to public attention its true implications. Hurricane Katrina is exactly that kind of event. In one single $200,000,000,000 storm, all the savings of decades of past and future short-sighted penny-pinching have been wiped out. If the president were willing to follow the Grover Norquist message to its logical conclusion, he would have to walk away from 500,000 suddenly homeless people and the economic productivity of a major US city. That's why Tancredo voted against the down-payment aid package for the Gulf Coast, because it would violate the purity of his ideology. Bush, on the other hand, realized the public wouldn't support turning its back on New Orleans, and couldn't bring himself to follow through.

This could be huge. I don't know if we can declare the death of economic fundamentalism just yet. Perhaps Referenda C and D will give a clearer picture. But this is certainly a bad sign for the forces of selfishness. I'm sure Norquist is on the phone to Bush and many others right now, telling them they lost their nerve, reminding them that it's not cool to care.

For years now, at all levels of government, we've been following a pattern of short-sighted lazy incompetence, dressed up as political ideology. It's time to realize that the budgetary process is much too blunt and simple-minded to be effective at improving the efficiency of government. It doesn't work, in real life, to cut funding for disaster preparedness and first responders, and expect that this will magically cause them to be more efficient. What happens in real life is it makes them ineffective. We saw plenty of proof on live TV in the past three weeks.

In the field of health care, we know that regular checkups and preventive care keep us out of the hospital, and in the long run save money. They also make us healthier and happier. Cutting preventive care doesn't make the health care system any less expensive in the long run. The only thing that has ever worked is the sophistication and professionalism of doctors.

The government is in many ways the foundation of the economy, and the ultimate safety net that keeps capitalism working. It's the one force that can guarantee our ability to survive major disasters. It isn't free, and it needs regular maintenance to work most efficiently. Call it a "beast" if you want, but the world can be a hostile place, and the beast will be fed.

In recent years the public has reacted to a highly complex world by yearning for simple solutions in government, solutions that are now proven not to work. So we see finally that the inadequate preparation and response to Katrina are cultural problems. It may be "your dough," but no, you don't know how to spend it better than the government, any more than you can perform surgery on yourself better than a doctor can.

Democrats need to lead us away from the mentality of lazy and selfish incompetence. We can make the government and private sectors both efficient and effective by focusing on better education, and the cultural virtues of professionalism and caring. This is a much better way of coping with the complexity of the world. We recognize that this is a responsibility that government has to us, and we have to each other.

Looking for Our Soul

2005-09-11T16:12:00.000-06:00

OK, let's be honest. Do you believe in your heart of hearts that George Bush, Dick Cheney, Condi Rice, Tom Tancredo, or any of the rest of them, care one bit about either the dead or the survivors along the Gulf Coast? Are any of them making even a half-hearted attempt to pretend to care? Hearing them talk, don't you get the strong impression it's all just a huge inconvenience? All those yukky corpses. The "blame game." Not even worth lowering the flag until Rehnquist died. Tancredo says let's turn our backs on both the dead and the survivors, it's not worth the money. Just make a run to Wal-Mart and get them some water, when you get a chance, if you feel like it.

These people who somehow got elected to lead the nation don't deserve to be called "human." They have no respect for life.

Bush and his resume-padding crony FEMA boss Michael Brown and the rest have their utopian vision that the world will be better if government goes away. So the first thing to go, since no one was complaining, was disaster planning. Well, so a few people died. It wasn't like it was 10,000 or anything. They must have deserved it since everything was going according to plan, drowning the government in a bathtub and all that. Collateral damage.

Well, we don't think this way. A poor person isn't 3/5 of a person. Next time someone tries to defend the monstrosities we've sent to Washington, show them the Declaration of Independence, and read them the first sentence of the second paragraph. (No, I'm not going to tell you, go read it yourself. Read the whole thing.) Has America lost its soul? How do we get it back?

Unplanned Consequences

2005-09-04T08:46:00.000-06:00

This week the most common question in my mailbox was "How can I help the people of New Orleans?" This was often preceded by a sentence that a Democratic Party Chairperson hates to see, "Right now, I don't care about politics." Cringe as I might at that last statement, I am struck by the fact that the local Party is a unique resource at times like this. It's a large group of caring people, who have already devoted substantial time and money to making the world a better place.

Our Party Strategic Plan doesn't mention "hurricane relief," and we have no rules and no committees to address it, but we do have a network of amazingly talented people, a web site, a mailing list, lots and lots of contacts, and experience. It's a perfect mixture to spawn grassroots relief projects, and it has:

One person, who works for a major airline, decided to put her unused buddy passes to work to transport hurricane victims to Colorado and find temporary homes for them. Others offered to provide those homes.
Another person volunteered to research the best relief agencies and put their contact information on our web site. Others chimed in with their own suggestions.
An ad hoc team in Highlands Ranch came together around the idea of holding a relief concert to benefit the Red Cross. Within 24 hours, they had lined up five bands, a venue, several speakers including a well-known local sports figure, and lots of amenities, all donated.

Through all of this, it doesn't seem to matter that all of this was orchestrated by Democrats in a highly Republican place. Several Republicans were happy to sign on to help. I'd love to claim credit as Party Chair, but all I did was pass the word.

I was starting to wonder whether political parties have lost their relevance in a changing, self-involved world. I don't wonder any more. The three unplanned efforts listed above will each undoubtedly raise more donations than our entire organization will this year. Yet, by bringing together these incredible, generous people, giving them a network and infrastructure that builds their confidence and capability, our local party has done its part. I'm very proud of this group.

If you want to help with any of the projects listed above, please send me a note and I'll refer you to the right people. As soon as possible we'll be posting information on the Douglas Democrats web site.

Speaking of generosity, I want to thank Bill Winter for offering to produce and pay for two weeks of Air America advertising (starting Wednesday) for the September 24 Douglas Democrats Fiesta, as well as a series of subsequent ads in support of our organization. Bill has done some amazing work for progressive causes in Colorado, and we are all very grateful.

Democracy Under Assault

2005-08-24T09:11:00.000-06:00

Google News has a great robotic talent for making connections we humans often miss. Wednesday morning it combined two headlines into a single article:

"President George W. Bush said on Tuesday that Iraq's Sunnis, who have balked at a draft constitution offered by Shi'ites and Kurds, have to decide if they want to live in a society of freedom or violence."
"Assassinate [Venezuelan President] Chavez, Pat Robertson tells a stunned America"

This a month after Tom Tancredo came to Highlands Ranch to advocate the bombing of Muslim holy sites if any of the world's 1 billion Muslims should carry out a terrorist attack; and a couple days after Bush advisor Grover Norquist, and Republican gubernatorial candidates Marc Holtzman and Bob Beauprez, came to the Wildlife Experience in Parker to tell a group of 200 mostly Indian businessmen how these Republican leaders want to create a two-class society in the United States just like India, and that anyone who can't get by without government help deserves to die.

(We happened to be there at the Wildlife Experience with our kids to catch the final day of the Lego exhibit. The juxtaposition was frightening: people like Norquist have no business being near children.)

This is less than a year after Bush appointed famous torture advocate Alberto Gonzales to be his Attorney General. These are the same people who talk up anti-abortion laws that will never pass, while adopting policies that have caused the abortion rate in Colorado to double since 2000.

Douglas County is reputed to have one of the best-educated populations in the nation. So why are people like Tancredo and Norquist coming to Douglas County to raise money for their violent causes?

There are plenty more examples of the hypocrisy of the Republican leadership, and you can read all about it in the book, Democracy Under Assault: TheoPolitics, Incivility, and Violence on the Right by Michele Swenson. Swenson came to Castle Rock Tuesday to speak to the Castle Rock Dems about her book and the immense amount of research behind it.

The Republican Party leadership has been taken over in recent years by a diverse coalition of extremists that are united by anger and violence. Some advocate war as a way of forcing the Second Coming of the Lord; others adhere to the concept of social Darwinism, that the condition of the human race over the long-term will be improved if the underachievers are killed off. Many are frustrated by the inability to stop terrorism, or the inability to keep people of other races from living near them, and want to just "kill 'em all."

I don't want to believe Republicans in Douglas County subscribe to these views. Even before I became a Democrat two years ago, few of my neighbors would ever mention such views to me. We have Republicans in Douglas County who sincerely believe in the traditional values of their Party, and hope someday to regain control of it. But they are largely afraid to speak up because they are well aware of the violence of their leadership. It won't get any better. You may have been a Republican all your life, but the Party you grew up with is gone, and won't be back. The Democratic Party is eager to welcome you.

Intelligent Design

2005-08-21T08:42:00.000-06:00

Seems lately the newspapers are full of discussions of "Intelligent Design," a point of view that asserts that the world must have been designed by some unspecified intelligent actor because it's too complicated to have arisen by evolution.

It would be really easy to argue that trigonometry doesn't exist because it's too complicated for anyone to understand, or that adults must have been created individually by God because the process of growing up from childhood is too complicated to understand. We don't hear anyone arguing these as objective reality, because people who make the effort can readily disprove both these assertions. However, in a subjective sense both statements might be true: a novelist might act as if trigonometry doesn't exist since he might have no use for it in his own life; any adult who believes in God might rightly assert that she was in part created as an adult by God: that's the main point of being Born Again, and it's a very real experience even if there's no scientific evidence of it.

What's wrong with the debate about intelligent design is both sides allow themselves to get stuck in positions that are indefensible.

Intelligent Design is a marketing concept to try to convince intellectually lazy people that science has somehow proven the existence of God. It's like Occam's Razor gone mad: it must be true because it's a lot simpler than evolution. It gives science too much credit, because science doesn't have the power to prove or disprove the existence of God even though a great many of us have perfectly certain proof in our own hearts. It fundamentally denigrates God and Faith to say that the existence of God needs scientific proof.

The other side is just as bad. Evolution, as an explanation of the development of species over the eons, is neither more nor less than a theory; it is emphatically not a religion, and was never meant to be taken on faith. Scientists accept the theory of evolution because it currently gives a better fit to the evidence we are able to gather, than any other theory. But evolution doesn't address the question of whether there is an intelligent designer; it merely describes the world as we see it. Intelligent Design, on the other hand, isn't science because it isn't based on testable hypotheses: God doesn't submit to scientific experiments. Evolution and Intelligent Design aren't alternatives or competitors to each other; they are complementary, with one in the realm of science and the other in the realm of faith.

We mustn't let a debate over Intelligent Design stop us from teaching critical thinking about any scientific theory, including evolution. We make intellectual progress by questioning our theories. It seems to me we are allowing the right-wingers to back us into a corner by giving the theory of evolution too much certainty: that makes us appear intellectually dishonest, or at least lazy. That accomplishes the political goal of discrediting intellectualism, a goal that has nothing to do with either religion or science.

I think we should address some of these issues in high schools, but in the context I've described here. It's an excellent case study of the scientific method to follow the chain of logic of the theory of evolution, how we move from evidence to theory, and look for the weaknesses along the way. It's an excellent exercise in the philosophy of science to ask where the concept of God might fit in, to show what science is by exposing what it isn't. It's an excellent opportunity for parents to explain, or to give their churches a chance to explain, what role their faith plays in the matter.

The goal here is to teach critical thinking, that scientific truth is ascertained by logic and evidence, not by who we are. This is in contrast to religious truth, which is determined by who we are and not by logic or evidence. Both are important, and it is the parent's duty - and no one else's - to integrate them.

Seems like grown-ups have a habit of playing political tug-of-war using their kids as the rope. We've got to stop doing that.

Leo Strauss and the Neo-Cons

2005-08-14T08:07:00.000-06:00

One of the unanswered puzzles of the early 21st century is how Republican foreign and domestic policy managed to turn so sharply away from anything we ever expected from Republicans or from conservatives. A part of that puzzle is addressed by a new book by Anne Norton, Leo Strauss and the Politics of American Empire.

The book traces the followers of Leo Strauss, a University of Chicago political theorist who died in 1973. Strauss himself was a sort of revolutionary, someone who made a point of questioning all authority, irreverent toward established views and traditions; in short, not necessarily a conservative at all, more like an early Ward Churchill. He was adored by his students, who after his death organized themselves into what they called the Straussians.

Nearly all of the Straussians held political views well out of the mainstream, some very liberal but most very conservative. Norton chronicles the careers of many of these students as they rose through the ranks of academia as influential professors. Their names are not well-known to the general public, but their students will be more familiar: people like Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, and Irving and William Kristol. (Norton herself was also one of these students.) This third generation continued to trace its lineage to Strauss (even maintained a "Straussians" web site), but created a political philosophy far different from anything Strauss would recognize, known today as neo-conservatism.

Norton traces the relationship between the Straussians and more conventional conservative thought. During Strauss' time, this relationship was fairly close, as Strauss rejected liberal orthodoxy in the same way contemporary conservatives did. Over time, however, as Straussians evolved into "neo-conservatives," they ironically began to shed much conservative orthodoxy. Conservatives valued custom and tradition, and believed that wealth and power brought responsibility. Neo-cons rejected most tradition, especially the tradition of statesmanship, and believed that the rich and powerful owed nothing to society. They favored a two-class society and the use of military force as the primary tool of international relations.

A hallmark of conservatism is a belief in the importance of limits in behavior, but neo-cons explicitly reject this notion and believe ends can justify any means. Traditional conservatives rejected grand theories and utopian projects, but neo-cons invented the Project for a New American Century, a grand project to take over the world and remake it in America's image. This grand project meant much larger government, but the neo-cons didn't see that as a problem, in contrast to traditional conservative views.

Traditional conservatives uniformly resisted social change, but neo-cons had a more complex view. They wanted to return the fabric of society to an imagined past, where gender and racial roles were well-defined. This was both conservative and radical at the same time, and required building an entire theoretical framework upon a foundation of bigotry and oppression. This has given us people like Tom Tancredo, who talk about small government but vote for big government, and whose most active supporters are motivated entirely by hate.

Norton's book is incredibly insightful as it explores the evolution of neo-conservative thought and several important influences on it, even going as far back as Theodore Roosevelt. However, sticking as it does to Norton's own first-hand knowledge and expertise, it leaves some important questions unanswered. Why, for example, do so many Americans disavow bigotry and call themselves conservatives, yet support a political philosophy that has rejected all tenets of conservatism save bigotry? And how can modern liberal thought fill the void, as the neo-cons abandon what was good in conservatism? These will have to be the subject of another book.

Inter-Party Cooperation

2005-08-07T08:17:00.000-06:00

Increasingly the theme of the Douglas County Democrats this year is inter-party cooperation and coalition-building. To succeed as a minority party and build up our numbers and capability, we have to reach out to groups that currently reside on the Republican side, even though they might be better off on ours.

A prime example is the small business community, especially independent entrepreneurs that depend most on a level field of competition and a government-supplied economic infrastructure. Referenda C and D are directly aimed to benefit this community, which is why the ballot measures are so strongly supported by Chambers of Commerce and other business groups dominated by small companies.

Small companies can't build their own roads, or provide higher education, or deliver police and fire-fighting protection. They demand these services from the government, and are more than willing to pay their fair share of the cost, as long as they see the services provided efficiently. Small business owners are rarely found in that small ideological group that wants government drowned in a bathtub. It's not good for business if roads are in disrepair or congested, if qualified employees can't be found locally, or if insurance costs become outrageous.

Small business owners of every party will be on our side in the upcoming election, so let's treat them as friends and work together with them to maintain Colorado's economic vitality. Hug your Republican small business owner today, and leave her with a stack of Ref C-D brochures.

Another issue shaping up to be bipartisan is the encroachment of certain religious doctrines into public education. Many Republicans are just as concerned about this as we are. We have great churches and Sunday Schools in Douglas County, which deserve our support. We count on them to teach the religious doctrines that we have chosen. We don't expect or want our public schools to spend time on this, or to confuse our children, or to make trouble within our families. We want our schools to teach the skills that help our kids to be highly successful later in life, and that's all.

There are groups right now in Douglas County that would like to remove the Douglas County School District from the public sphere by giving up Federal funding and the strings that come attached to that, including the separation of Church and State and quality standards. They want to raise our property taxes to compensate for the loss of Federal funding, and then feel free to indoctrinate our kids any way they like. This would be a disaster for Douglas County parents and taxpayers of every party. Those of us who came to Douglas County specifically for quality schools would move away, and that would be disastrous for local businesses.

Democrats and Republicans both will need to examine the School Board ballot very carefully this November, talk personally with the candidates, and make sure we aren't buying a pig in a poke. The best way to make sure the ballot has good candidates supporting quality education, is to be on the ballot yourself. You only need 100 signatures, which you can start gathering today and must be turned in by August 26. For more information, contact Vicki Simonson, 303-387-0123 at the Douglas County School District.

No Jobs for You

2005-08-01T07:51:00.000-06:00

Voters in November have a chance to decide whether Colorado will attract the kinds of skilled technology jobs that improve our quality of life, or become an economic backwater. Referenda C and D will make the economic investments necessary to support a growing economy and supply well-educated workers to the industries we would like to attract to the state.

Let's face it, we live in a competitive world. States that make the necessary investments to support high-tech will win those companies away from those that don't. Sure it costs money. Everything worth having costs money. We've neglected our roads and universities, and we see the results every day in traffic jams and declining quality of education. We have a lot of catching up to do, and it's time to get started.

Refs C and D follow the process prescribed in TABOR, asking the voters for permission to undo the damage from the recession. In Douglas County, we're being asked for permission to spend about $100 per family to fix bottlenecks on I-25 in Castle Rock, C-470 in Highlands Ranch, and Parker Road, as well as to keep Arapahoe Community College open. It's a great deal, and we should take it.

Speaking of good jobs, our Congresspeople (Tancredo included) lost a great opportunity to bring some to Colorado. Both environmental groups and the conservative Cato Institute agree that the energy bill about to hit the president's desk is larded with gifts to cronies in the fossil fuel industries, with nothing to help build the renewable energy industry, improve national security, or reduce gas prices. More air pollution for Colorado, and once again a lost opportunity to bring a new, clean industry here. Time to throw the crooks out.

Tancredo Advocates MAD

2005-07-23T17:19:00.000-06:00

Rep. Tom Tancredo told an overflow crowd in Highlands Ranch Saturday morning that the United States should enter a relationship of "mutually assured destruction (MAD)" with the "Muslim world", just like the cold war with the Soviet Union. Those were his exact words. He didn't take questions, of course, because he doesn't actually care what anyone has to say. He commented that he believes politicians listen too much to real people's concerns, which he terms "political correctness."

Tancredo made the remarks as part of a rambling presentation on a number of issues at the start of a forum primarily dealing with Veterans Administration and Social Security issues. At another point in his remarks, he commented that he believes the main problem with the Veterans Administration is that it has too many lawyers. He presented as fact that the VA has about 900 lawyers, and said this might be the largest of any Federal agency. The VA Administrator, who was next to speak, quickly corrected that the VA has only 308 lawyers. Of course, the Defense Department dwarfs both numbers.

About half the crowd, estimated at more than 150, laughed when Tancredo first raised the subject of his proposal to threaten bombing Mecca, and the same people laughed again when he was caught in the lie about the VA's lawyers. They cheered at the end of Tancredo's remarks. I'm proud of the other half, who expressed their disapproval of the MAD concept. I'm very concerned that our culture has completely lost its conscience, and was especially saddened that the people who took so lightly the making of threats against millions of innocent, devout people, were largely senior citizens and veterans, people who otherwise would deserve enormous respect. (The other half, the ones whose consciences were still intact, were also largely seniors and veterans.)

As senior citizens, most of those attending the meeting remember the real cold war, when the United States and the Soviet Union had large numbers of nuclear weapons pointed at each other. What made the system work, in its insane way, was that both nations had elaborate systems in place to ensure that no individual, save the Head of State himself, could launch an attack, and even then with multi-level safeguards against accidents or rash actions. The very rational leaders on both sides fully understood the simple equation: push button = everyone dies, and believed that would be a bad thing.

Terrorism is different. Suicide bombers understand the same equation, but think it's a great thing. There are no safeguards and no hesitation. Terrorists don't read the papers, aren't rational, and couldn't care less if Mecca is blown up. They are not true Muslims. So Tancredo's threats have nothing to do with protecting America from terrorism, but are great for Al Qaeda recruitment and fund-raising. Somewhere in a cave in Afghanistan, Osama Bin Laden (remember him?) is thanking his perverted concept of Allah for Tancredo's idiocy.

Deep Impact

2005-07-02T22:09:00.000-06:00

Sunday night, July 3, at 11pm MDT we'll be treated to one of the most amazing man-made spectacles ever seen in space, as the Deep Impact space probe crashes into the comet Tempel 1. The crash will blow a stadium-size hole in the comet so a second spacecraft can study the material ejected from it. Our understanding of how the earth was created will benefit greatly from the mission. Your best bet for seeing this once-in-a-lifetime event is to tune in to the National Optical Astronomy Observatory. You can visit the site even now to see the pictures as the spacecraft approaches the comet. This probably won't be on TV since TV doesn't actually do news anymore. See SpaceRef.com or Space.com for more information about the mission.

We're fortunate that a hard fight by our scientists has given us small space exploration missions such as Deep Impact and the Mars rovers, which are both still exploring the Red Planet more than 16 months after landing there. The 1969 moon landing seems a distant memory, perhaps a dream. Today when we send people and machines into space, it's largely for military or commercial ventures, not to learn. Fundamentalists have no need for learning: just praise the Lord, pass the Coors, and veg out until the second coming. Maybe start a few wars in an effort to force God's hand and make him come faster, as though He's some sort of machine at man's command.

The events of this week help to give us some perspective on the sickness of fundamentalism that has infected America over the past three decades, reassuring us that the rest of the world doesn't have the disease so badly. Our country was created 229 years ago as the land of Liberty, and we showed the world how it's done. Now as the United States loses its way, other countries are taking the lead. Spain, for example, has just joined Belgium, Canada, and the Netherlands to legalize gay marriage. Social progress of other nations can help us nudge our own progress along. Don't forget we're only 5% of the earth's population, and a shrinking percent of the world economy. We've nurtured the world along for a hundred years, but now the rest of the world is strong enough to nurture us through our illness. If we can maintain our education system, natural environment, and especially our cultural curiosity, diversity and spunk, we can get through this.

But we're sure not trying very hard. We learned this week that the first full-scale fusion reactor will be built in France, not America. The US had weakly supported a site in Japan, but had little leverage, having brought little to the table. Offering the potential for nearly limitless energy, the $13 billion project will cost only 5% of the $260 billion we've spent so far in Iraq. China is also working on its own fusion project, and will soon launch its second manned space flight. America's share of worldwide scientific papers and patents is dropping. Stem cell research is moving overseas. Japanese households routinely buy internet service seven times as fast as Qwest DSL at a lower price. We're falling behind.

We're fortunate indeed that the rest of the world hasn't caught the fundamentalist bug. Other nations can keep the scientific research going until we are able to regain our leadership role. To anyone in Europe or most of Asia or anywhere in the southern hemisphere, Colorado Springs and Medina are very similar places, the former having better weather. Fundamentalist groups have perpetuated a cancer in southwest Asia and another slightly different variety in North America, a cancer that is sapping our economic and technological vitality. Recovery isn't automatic; we have a real fight ahead of us. We need to rebuild our education system, basic research and technological edge, and preserve our economic infrastructure, so we regain our ability to provide the products and services the world wants to buy.

Too much power

2005-06-26T21:25:00.000-06:00

The visit last night of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to Castle Rock, along with the recent Supreme Court decision about eminent domain, combine to spotlight what might be the key to building a western Democratic resurgence: a concern about freedom from excessive power over the individual.

Westerners - both Republicans and Democrats - have always been especially sensitive on this issue. Pioneers moved west expecting a high degree of autonomy, the ability to live their lives in a style of their own making, without a lot of rules to hold back the rugged individual. They were in for a big shock as the long arm of far-away Washington soon caught up with them. More recently, much of Ronald Reagan's support came from westerners resentful of a Washington that imposed rules on the west without ever trying to understand western needs.

Most of us who have moved west in recent years did so to enjoy the beauty of God's undiluted creation, with the understanding that Federal lands - national parks, monuments, and forests - would be protected in a way that was impossible in the east, free for the enjoyment of the individual. Again, we were in for a big shock as we experienced the power of large corporations to defile vast areas of land as well as the air and water. Robert Kennedy spoke about this at length last night.

Democrats and Republicans alike value the elegant balance of power of our Constitution, designed to protect the individual from tyranny. But government isn't the only source of tyranny in our modern world, as corporations are in many ways more powerful, especially in the west. Worst of all is when the powers of government and corporations combine to create an unstoppable juggernaut.

The need to check the powers of the corporation is nothing new. Abraham Lincoln, our greatest Republican president, once commented that he faced the south on one side and the bankers on the other, and of the two he feared the bankers most. Our system has developed a balance of power between government and corporations through the processes of regulation and competition. Vigilence of the voters and the Congress have served to keep government and business separated, so the forces of competition can work. We all knew intuitively that corporate money could corrupt politicians, convey an unfair advantage, and break down the balance of power.

Somehow in recent years we have forgotten this lesson, let our guard down, and allowed a small number of large corporations to gain ownership of both the Congress and the Executive Branch. As a result, corporations pollute at will, we see our beautiful mountains on fewer days each year, we no longer have a meaningful competition of ideas in our media, and we rush into wars with little thought given to the people and smaller businesses who suffer as a result.

We in Douglas County and the eastern plains are acutely aware of the awesome combined power of government and corporations as we deal with issues of eminent domain. Landowners on the eastern plains were alarmed when they discovered that the state had the power to forcibly buy them off their land and give the land to a private tollway developer. The statehouse saw one of its largest grassroots protests, ever, over this issue. Because of the controversy, we then became aware that there is precious little protection against the taking of water rights as well. The US Supreme Court in a decision this week reinforced this dangerous possibility.

The problem here isn't the corporations or the government: they both do exactly what they are programmed to do. The problem is loss of checks and balances, and the growing lack of respect for the individual.

We saw the disrespect for individuals graphically just a couple days ago when Karl Rove attacked half the population - "liberals," as he calls them - suggesting that they would gladly destroy the country. Now mud-slinging among politicians is older than the Republic, something that we've come to expect even if we don't like it. But mud-slinging directed against a large segment of the public - people doing their best to raise their kids, run their businesses, and create a better world - that's something new that we've only seen recently. Anyone who is puzzled by the rise of grassroots activism led by people like Howard Dean, should pay close attention here: we take it personally, because it's directed at us personally. The government/corporate juggernaut wants to pollute or take away our land and water, supervise our private lives, and even add insult to injury for good measure. Yes, we're mad as hell.

If we're not going to take it anymore, we have to change our own ways as well. We keep nominating presidential candidates from the east who don't understand these concerns. We've got to stop that. It's not a matter of big government vs. small government: we want a government that does a good job of what it's supposed to do, including limiting the power of corporations; and stays completely out of what it's not supposed to do, leaving our land and lives alone.

Big Upcoming Events

2005-06-19T08:26:00.000-06:00

We haven't had much of a political debate about the environment lately, and it's about time we did. Protection of wildlife, natural beauty, and natural resources is one of the issues that a majority of Douglas County, of any party, can agree on. Why focus on issues that divide us when there are such important matters that unite us?

We can start the discussion next weekend when Robert F. Kennedy comes to Castle Rock to speak at the Douglas County Events Center. Besides having a famous and tragic father, Kennedy is well known for his work to protect the Hudson River in New York. He is author of Crimes Against Nature, a book that chronicles how we have lost sight of environmental protection and of those who make their living off the land.

Please come to Castle Rock on June 25 for this rare and unique event. You can download a flyer with all the details by clicking here. There will be training workshops all day, with the main event from 6:20pm to 9:00pm. Tickets to the Kennedy speech cost $35.

The discussion continues in July as we move to another subject we all agree on, patriotism. There seem to be a lot of public figures lately, starting with the president himself, who are quick to dismiss anyone who disagrees with him as unpatriotic. That's just mean-spirited hogwash. We all care very much about our country. Bring the whole family to show it on July 30 at the Douglas County Fairgrounds in Castle Rock for A Celebration of Democracy with Gen. Wesley Clark.

Gen. Clark is the former NATO Supreme Allied Commander for Europe, and former candidate for president. Gen. Clark has a vision of patriotism and of America's role in the world, that is both more sophisticated and more effective than what we've been hearing from Washington. It's a message all of us of every political party need to think about.

Aside from the 6pm address by Gen. Clark, the July 30 event will feature training workshops all day, rides for the kids (including donkey rides!), booths of all kinds, great music, and many more inspirational speakers. The fair and speakers are $35 for adults, and free for children. Watch the Be the Change USA web site, btc-usa.org for registration details. This event is co-sponsored by the Douglas County Democrats.

Be the Change USA is a Federal Political Action Committee promoting progressive issues and principles first espoused by the Senate campaign of Mike Miles. Be the Change USA is steadfastly committed to progressive ideals: compassion over greed, effort over pedigree, service over wealth, and the common good above all.

Yes on C and D

2005-06-12T07:08:00.000-06:00

The Executive Committee of the Douglas County Democrats unanimously endorsed Ballot Measures C and D this week. Senate Majority Leader Ken Gordon was at the meeting to explain the measure to us and give us some pointers on how to explain it to the public.

A small group of right-wing extremists is opposing Refs. C and D because they don't care about economic growth or the success of our children. Well, we do care. Very much. Putting the state back on a sound fiscal track benefits everyone in Colorado, building the infrastructure our businesses need, and keeping higher education affordable.

Referendum C allows the state to keep and spend all revenues collected from existing state taxes for the next five years. It reduces the "ratchet effect," where an economic recession can go on forever when the state has no means to adjust and bounce back. The money saved will be spent on health care, schools and colleges, and preserving roads and bridges.

Referendum D allows the state to issue bonds to speed the economic recovery. This money will be spent on transportation; pension funds for firefighters and police officers; and repairs of public school buildings, colleges, and universities.

These measures are essential for the state's economic growth and the success of its business community, which is why they enjoy strong business support. I've written before about the importance of public infrastructure as an enabler of economic development. Strategic, optimized infrastructure investment has been the basis of my whole professional career and is a cornerstone of Democratic economic policy. It's a major part of the government's value-added in the economy.

It's about time we in Douglas County jettison the baggage of economic fundamentalism, a close relative of religious fundamentalism. The mantra to "starve the beast" in practice means "starve the economy." Our business-friendly neighbors are complicit in their own economic stagnation if they continue to allow a small band of fervent fundamentalists to put a straitjacket on economic growth and innovation.

Without ballot measures C and D, we'll have an economy with all the vibrancy of Mississippi. Without a Colorado competitive advantage, businesses and jobs will follow the telecommunications industry out of the state, often overseas. The business community is worried, and so should we all be. Vote 'yes' on C and D.

County Chairs' Summit

2005-06-05T20:49:00.000-06:00

I just spent the weekend at the County Chairs' Summit in Salida, and am very excited about what I saw. It was a chance to get to know each other, build working relationships, get a lot of questions answered, and share ideas. I can't believe how much I learned! About half of the Chairs attended, along with most of the state party's paid staff and officers. Pat Moore (Adams County Chair) and Carolyn Boller (State Party Secretary) deserve a lot of credit for a highly successful weekend.

One of the most notable aspects of the meeting was the high level of energy and motivation of the County Chairs, urban and rural alike. You would think this is an election year - well, I guess it is, with ballot questions C & D coming up in November. Quite a few of the chairs are new and are getting established in counties that had very little organization before. Others have considerable experience and shared it liberally - so many great ideas and tips!

I've commented before on the need for a state party infrastructure. Less than three months after the state reorganization, we're already seeing incredible progress under the new State Chair, Pat Waak. The technology infrastructure work is proceeding much faster than I dared hope, with tools already rolling out for us to use. Technology is a difficult issue for the small counties but we are planting the seeds of a mutual support network so no county has to go without the best tools.

A great deal of work has been going on to clarify legal compliance issues so we get the best possible advice on legal and financial matters. As part of the meeting, the state Director of Elections addressed the group on the state statutes, recent administrative rulings, and relevant court cases. This will help all of us to stay well within the complex and often vague new laws.

Pat Waak updated us about ongoing work on messaging and polling at the national and state levels. We devoted a portion of the meeting to provide our own counties' input on messaging issues. The strategic planning and brainstorming sessions we have done in Douglas County were very helpful in this. We'll follow up on that next weekend in Boulder with a training class on working with the media. Several additional training classes are also in the works. CDP's new media director, Joelle Martinez, has done a fantastic job of establishing a truly professional media operation.

I had great fun sharing the ideas and products developed right here in Douglas County. Joél Lachance had assembled a poster montage of photos and ideas about our community involvement activities, community meetings, and social events. This sparked a lot of discussion about our role in the general community and the importance of working for a better quality of life even outside of elected offices. There was widespread agreement that this is the most important thing a county party can do to help the general public understand what we are all about.

Our new PCP Toolkit, completed just 3 weeks ago, was a major hit. Every county wants one.

I described to the group the organization and promotion of the Clinton-Carter Dinner, what worked and what we learned. Many counties had never held a fund-raising dinner, but went away ready to get started. Other counties, especially the bigger ones like JeffCo, had some great fund-raising ideas that I want to put to work right away.

We went into the meeting as isolated county leaders feeling very much on our own, and left feeling like a team. I can't wait for the next one.

Rock, Paper, Scissors

2005-05-29T08:38:00.000-06:00

Examining Republican Congressional gains last year, we've done some soul-searching, asking what we can learn from their strategy and tactics, and how much we should emulate them. Certainly there are aspects of the Republican game plan we can't copy without compromising our own values: incessant lying, dividing Americans against themselves, and launching unnecessary wars are age-old tricks we consider immoral and won't emulate.

But one aspect of Republican strategy that we do admire is the command of language, particularly the "framing" of political debate described so effectively by George Lakoff in his recent book, "Don't Think of an Elephant," and his appearance last weekend at the Denver Convention Center.

An important perspective I've gleaned from Lakoff is the three-way interdependence between values, communication, and policy. Values affect how we communicate and provide a context for communication. People understand our words and policies in the context of their own values. In a Democracy, policies are enacted by persuasion, so the effectiveness of a policy proposal depends to a great degree on how well it can be communicated. People accept policies that strike a chord with their own values.

The Bush Administration has been very effective in its communication strategy, especially in shaping its definition of "values" around the policies that keep its allies in office: redefining Christianity to mean war-mongering, division, and selfishness, for example, and redefining "pro-business" to mean pro-big-corporation. A recent failure that demonstrates the effectiveness of this strategy is Social Security, where Bush's ability to communicate was hampered by the complexity of the topic and by his inability to articulate his motivation and values behind the proposal. His true motivation for dismantling Social Security is the belief that people who don't save enough for their own retirement deserve to die. But he can't come right out and say this without weakening his already-dubious claim to being "pro-life," losing the political support of seniors, and perhaps even triggering some moral revulsion if anyone in America is still capable of it. So the policy proposal is dying because it can't be effectively communicated.

One key to Republican strategy is the meme that strength=good. Anything that is strong must necessarily be good. Overwhelming military force. Corporate scale. Mega-churches. Wal-Mart. Those are all signs of success, according to the strength frame. John Kerry fell right into this trap with his focus on war heroism, trying to show that he is stronger than Bush and therefore better. Of course, the strategy was doomed because Bush was president and Kerry was not, so obviously, to many, Bush was the stronger by virtue of where he sits. The fallacy of Kerry's strategy was accepting the frame that might makes right.

One alternative frame is ingenuity=good. Remember David vs. Goliath, the Road Runner vs Wile E. Coyote, or the huge economic growth of the 1990s driven by tiny internet start-ups. I'm not talking about book learning or command of big words. I am talking about resourcefulness, creativity, understanding, adaptability, and diversity. This is the logical evolutionary path for the Democratic Party's newly-rediscovered grassroots activism, if those of us in positions of authority in the party can let go enough.

Perhaps we should frame success not by whether it makes us strong, but by whether it makes us nimble. A changing world, with scientific discoveries, greater freedoms, and exciting new businesses, is our ally. We can adapt, and the Republicans cannot. Donkies are nimble, elephants are ponderous. The more we help individuals adapt to change, the more we prove our value and make the public less afraid of change.

So this suggests a very different strategy from the one we tried in 2004. It's not a game of slap-down where we try to slap harder than the other guys, responding to their hostility with even greater hostility. It's more like rock-paper-scissors, where we overcome the Republican juggernaut not by using their weapons and approach, but by coming up with our own very different approach, exploiting the diversity and creativity that they will never have.

Completely ignore their disparaging remarks about "flip-flopping." We can change with the times, we're adaptable, we have the new answers to new problems. Change is exciting, fun to watch and participate in, the engine of economic growth. American families, upwardly mobile, move to new homes every 4-5 years. It doesn't mean we were wrong last time we moved, only that we keep trying to do better. Americans have confidence that we can meet new challenges without compromising what we stand for, because a love of change is central to our culture. We admire Luke Skywalker, not Arnold Schwartzenegger. Political competition is a losing game of strength only if we Democrats uncritically accept Republican framing of it, rather than using our own sources of advantage.

Relay for Life

2005-05-22T10:42:00.000-06:00

A team of Douglas County Democrats supported a great cause, won an award, and had a great time at the May 21-22 Relay for Life in Castle Rock. The Relay, a benefit for the American Cancer Society, started at 2pm Saturday with a barbeque followed by an opening ceremony honoring Douglas County cancer survivors. It ended at 8am Sunday morning with the release of dozens of white doves into the clear morning sky. More than two dozen teams participated in all.

The Douglas County Fairgrounds was transformed into a track lined with hundreds of luminaria, candles in decorated paper bags, honoring cancer victims and survivors. Hour by hour through the warm night, team members took turns walking a baton around the track to honor their pledge to donors. The Democrats' team honored more than 30 friends and loved ones who have battled cancer, including two survivors who participated on the team. The 12 team members were joined at various times by their children and well-wishers.

As part of the closing ceremony, the Douglas Democrats were warmly cheered by all the teams as they accepted an award for the best-decorated baton.

We want to thank Pam Moser for organizing the team. This is one of the many activities of our Community Involvement Committee, one of the largest and most active segments of the Douglas Democrats. Through the Committee's many efforts like this one, we work to improve the quality of life for everyone in Douglas County and demonstrate the power of the values of Freedom, Responsibility, and Opportunity. Please contact Sue Carter (303-841-4887) if you would like to get involved.

Clinton-Carter Dinner

2005-05-15T09:10:00.000-06:00

On May 14, 2005, The Douglas County Democrats held their First annual Dinner in honor of past Presidents, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, at the Sheraton Hotel in Englewood.

A crowd of more than 200 enjoyed a keynote speech by Rutt Bridges, Founder of the Bighorn Center for Public Policy, a successful software industry entrepreneur, and rumored candidate for Governor. Bridges spoke of growing up in rural Georgia in a large tight knit family and of his values developed there of Equality, Justice, Community, Opportunity, and Hard Work. He contrasted these values with those of the "Neo-Conservative" movement currently in power in Washington, which he maintains is immoral and not conservative at all. He advocated a return to leadership based on Freedom and Responsibility. Mr. Bridges would not confirm his likely candidacy for the Colorado Governor's office.

Bridges was introduced by Colorado State Senator Dan Grossman (D- Denver), a likely Candidate for Colorado Attorney General. Colorado State Representative Morgan Carroll (D-Arapahoe County) opened the event by discussing the new legislature's support of small business, entrepreneurship, education, and the environment. Both Grossman and Carroll spoke about the historic agreement with Gov. Owens on state budgetary reform that will be sent to the voters as Referenda C and D in November with strong business community support.

Also on the program, State Chair of the Democratic Party, Pat Waak, spoke of her years working for President Carter, and newly announced candidate for governor Bill Ritter spoke of his decision to run for the Statehouse. Bill Winter was the Master of Ceremonies for the successful fund-raising event.

Apathy

2005-05-08T09:33:00.000-06:00

The biggest enemy of our values isn't the Republicans, not even the fundamentalists. Our biggest enemy is apathy.

Over the past week a couple dozen of us have been phone banking, contacting Democrats in the county to drum up business for the May 14 Clinton-Carter Dinner, for our monthly community meetings in Highlands Ranch, Parker, and Castle Rock, and for our fund-raising programs. We've had some wonderful conversations and some success in our mission. But what was most striking to many of us was the number of people who simply don't care, who would much rather be washing their hair than getting involved in their community.

Of course, apathy is rife among Republicans as well. We canvassed a large fraction of Republican households in support of our candidates last year, and found that few people recognized the names of their legislators and County Commissioners.

One thing we can say for the Republican Party, though, is that it has less trouble with apathy than we do. Why is that? Two reasons, which together make a very clever political strategy.

First, they've discovered that a heightened emotional state is the best antidote: emotions like fear, hatred, and disgust are strong and effective motivators, directed against any convenient group - Gays and Arabs today just like Jews in 1930s Germany. This is a strategy for less-educated, less-empowered segments of the population, but we're not immune to it in Douglas County. I remember a neighborhood party recently where one person went on at length with derogatory comments about various ethnic groups he didn't like. Interestingly, his largely Republican audience was uncomfortable and didn't join in the conversation, but remained silent.

And that brings us to the second part of the strategy, an ingenious form of jujitsu that actually turns apathy into advantage. Douglas County Republicans are largely business-oriented and pragmatic. They are aware of the moral deficiency of a strategy based on hate, but as long as it seems irrelevant to business, they find comfort in turning a blind eye to it. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. The unholy alliance of fundamentalists and business interests that is today's Republican Party holds together because each side is apathetic toward the other.

The emotional energy of fundamentalism was what brought the Republican Party into power, and apathy is what keeps it there. What's the lesson for Democrats? That we need to find our own source of emotional energy. This is a tall order for a group that is traditionally rationalistic (in other words: boring and unemotional, characterized by the likes of Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry).

Let's start with what doesn't work. We tried disgust directed toward fundamentalists, but that didn't work. We tried being depressed, suspicious, angry, sad, shocked, frustrated, and anxious, and those didn't work either. Maybe we had to go through those phases, but I think we're past them, now.

Maybe it's about time to focus on the positive emotions, let the Republicans keep their negative ones. How about ambition: the thrill of forming new businesses and community organizations, of opportunity for success, of creating something bigger than ourselves, of raising fantastically talented children. How about excitement: new discoveries from science and technology, great accomplishments in medicine and sports, more freedom and mobility. And how about love: of our families, of nature, of our communities, and of our neighbors (even the Republicans, regardless of how they feel about us).

I am constantly struck by the extent to which Democrats in Douglas County already are living these values, finding strength in these emotions. Our small business entrepreneurs, our community boards, our schools, and our charitable organizations are led disproportionately by Democrats. Democrats maintain the excellence of our libraries, roads and bridges, and open space. In my own subdivision, only 15% Democratic, the Homeowner's Association is led by a Democrat, the Social Chair is a Democrat, and the community newsletter is written almost entirely by Democrats. While a few Republicans are loudly looking for people or institutions to tear down, Democrats in Douglas County are quietly building a better quality of life.

We will combat apathy by appealing to positive emotions, by bringing out the best in people. We've started organizing events that contribute to quality of life, such as restoration of open space and supporting cancer research, and these will quickly become more visible as our own skills and resources improve. We are recruiting candidates who are honest, who care about the community, and who are good at communicating the positive energy that we feel. Fundamentalists, who are also looking for a foothold in Douglas County, will fight this fiercely, because it's not their agenda. We need the numerous Democrats who are already heavily involved in the community and care deeply about it, to build their courage and come forward to stand up for their values and lead by example.

About Us

2005-05-01T07:20:00.000-06:00

Douglas County has the fastest-growing population of Democrats in the nation, and is the home of a vibrant Democratic Party organization!

Of all the counties in Colorado, ours will see the biggest changes in coming years. Voters will turn their attention to pressing local issues such as transportation, water, sustainable growth, education, and health care - wanting government to spend its resources in ways that directly affect our lives.

We aim to live our vision of community: working to improve the quality of life for all Douglas County residents; making the county and state a great place to raise a family and start a business; preserving the democracy and freedom we all cherish; and taking seriously our responsibility to each other and to the world.

Over the last two years, the Douglas Democrats went through an incubation phase, building harmonious relationships among the area's Democrats and nurturing a new grassroots movement. We discovered in the 2004 campaign that we could be highly organized, that not only are there a great number of Democrats in the county, but they are skilled and motivated.

So in March of this year, our focus shifted to rapid growth. We elected a new slate of officers and built a larger organization, learning from our extensive network of contacts with other Metro counties, but aiming to improve on their accomplishments. - in organization, technology, visibility, and effectiveness. We are small business owners, artists, professionals, and parents of small children - the demographic mainstream of Douglas County, a nucleus for a major shift in voter attitudes.

You are a critical part of this change. As donors and volunteers, you make it possible to realize this vision. You attract people to our cause simply by living your values and giving to the community. It's an honor to work with you all and a challenge to keep up with you!

Dems Aid Open Space

2005-04-24T11:15:00.000-06:00

A large contingent of Douglas County Democrats turned out yesterday to help county Open Space staff plant shrubs at the Hidden Mesa Open Space south of Parker. While the event was open to anyone wanting to help the county restore this natural treasure, the vast majority of the two dozen adults who came to the event were wearing Douglas County Democrats tee-shirts.

Hidden Mesa is a recent acquisition of unique riparian and upland habitat stretching from Cherry Creek up the bluffs to the west. The area is under intense development pressure, but a wise landowner agreed to sell the land to the County in 2003. The Town of Castle Rock also contributed significantly to the purchase, which connects with the Town's Gateway Mesa Open Space near Founders. The land had been heavily over-grazed, destroying the shrubs native to the area. With a few hours of good honest work we've made a big difference in restoring the original vegetation near the creek.

Hidden Mesa Open Space is easily accessible by the paved Cherry Creek Trail, which extends southward to Castlewood Canyon. The County will soon build an unpaved trail for hiking and mountain biking up to the Mesa. The area is also accessible from Parker Road at the old Grange Hall. It would make an excellent Saturday family outing.

Click here for more information about Douglas County Open Space.

Absolute Power

2005-04-16T14:10:00.000-06:00

"Absolute power corrupts absolutely." Right now call Wayne Allard at 303-220-7414. Tell him to oppose weakening the filibuster rule in the Senate.

What's a filibuster? It's a Senate rule that allows a minority of at least 40% to stop legislation that they strongly oppose. Most legislation and judicial nominations pass smoothly with a 50% majority vote, but at times the majority can try to ram particularly extreme bills or presidential appointments through. It happens no matter which party is in the majority.

Right now, the filibuster is the last defense against indoctrination of our kids with someone else's religion, the final check on the increasingly bold criminals who dominate the legislative branch. Without the filibuster, we haven't even a fig leaf of the checks and balances we thought were guaranteed by the Constitution.

Call Senator Allard today. Just leave a message if a real person doesn't answer. They do count the calls. For that matter, call Ken Salazar as well at 303-455-7600, just in case.

Budget Reform

2005-04-10T17:51:00.000-06:00

Here we are seemingly in the middle of winter, the snowfall at 18 inches and counting, but thinking past summer to the November election, the most important in years. Odd-year elections are typically not very exciting, but this year is different. Will the snow be plowed, will our children be able to afford college, and will the poor be able to get health care? The state budget reform measure will decide all those things and more.

We're planning a full-scale voter education and get-out-the-vote effort for this referendum in November. Organizations like the Club for Growth — the ultra-right-wing group that thinks everyone making less than $1 million per year can go to you-know-where — is already making plans to flood the ballot with 20 competing measures to totally confuse the voters. They want to completely destroy state government, and this will be a test of whether they can do it.

On the side of Freedom, Responsibility, and Opportunity, we'll be walking the precincts to explain what's really happening, and show each voter how they can help fix it by voting in favor of the referendum. This will be a costly and time-consuming battle, but if we don't stand up for what's moral and right, who will?

Much of what we do with our Precinct Committee People and volunteers this summer will be preparation for that battle. We'll have workshops on July 30 and August 13 (mark your calendars now!) to get ourselves conversant in all the technicalities of the measure. It's not a time to be lazy, so get ready for some study and practice.

Douglas County has a very important role to play. Our Democrats are supporting this already, but a large number of unaffiliated and Republican voters will support it as well. They have children in school, and only the cruelest of parents would deny their children and their neighbors' children a chance at college.

We Democrats own this budget reform package. We designed and negotiated it, and worked hard to get Republican leaders — even the conservative Gov. Owens — on board. Republicans will vote with us and discover that it feels good to care about one's community.

You can make a difference right now. Visit our web site, and click Donate Now!

Front Range Lifestyle Showcase

2005-04-03T08:42:00.000-06:00

We spent much of the last two days at the Front Range Lifestyle Showcase, an annual Chamber of Commerce event in Castle Rock. The Douglas County Democrats booth there was a great success, and we learned some very important things about our county.

Sue Carter and Marilyn Beem deserve tremendous credit for the organization and decoration of our booth, by far the finest one in the show. No one passing the booth would have any confusion about its purpose, with all manner of patriotic features, bumper stickers and other paraphernalia for sale, an attractive door prize, and a great supply of up-to-date literature.

The booth was well staffed, with never less than two, and sometimes as many as sixteen (!), friendly volunteers present. When the 16 people weren't all trying to crowd into the booth, they were walking the aisles in their new Douglas Democrats tee-shirts, undoubtedly making an impression on people who had not yet gotten the message that the Democrats are coming.

Those of us who worked the booth both this year and last, noticed an important difference: not only was the crowd bigger, but there were far more Democrats in it. Not necessarily people registered as Democrats, but people realizing that they have more in common with us than they thought, and less in common with the increasingly fundamentalist Republican Party.

People who came by and identified themselves as Republicans were friendly and talkative, many commenting that they were happy to see us there and very concerned about the direction of their party. Their concerns fell into a predictable pattern: that government should stay out of people's personal lives; that politicians in Washington aren't taking the deficit seriously, and are becoming boldly corrupt; that we're not creating the small, high-technology businesses we need in order to stay competitive in the world; and that the state's natural beauty has been taken for granted and is in danger.

Even more striking was the number of people who openly and gleefully identified themselves as Democrats, most notably the owners of many of the small businesses occupying other booths at the show. Our message was that it's safe to come out of the closet, the pendulum is starting to swing the other way and it's time to recognize the change. People understand the importance of Freedom and Responsibility, and are coming to the realization that the Democrats have much to offer that our children and businesses need.

This experience adds momentum to our Blue Business program, an effort to recognize businesses that support progressive causes and show them the community's appreciation. If you would like your business to be recognized, please contact us to join our Blue Business program.

Schiavo

2005-03-27T07:55:00.000-07:00

If we needed any more evidence that the new Republican party is anti-family and anti-freedom, the Terry Schiavo case is it. This is big government at its biggest and most obscene. The fundamentalist fanatics demonstrated their full control of all three branches of government by mobilizing the full membership of the Congress and seemingly everyone breathing in the judicial branch to devote valuable taxpayer funded time to intrude on the tragic situation of one family in Florida.

The fundamentalists didn't know or care about the circumstances of the case, they merely saw an opportunity to make a political point, that they are in control and no family is immune from their oversight. They have no sense of Responsibility, either to the institution of the Family, or to the taxpayers. They don't value dignity. They hate our freedom. It's time for them to go.

***

We Democrats are big believers in fair competition, and we know that the threat of political competition, if it still existed, is what could have kept the government from intruding in the Schiavo family. Here in Douglas County, for too long we have not provided any meaningful competition for the Republicans. This has to change, and now.

The Douglas Democrats are building a new and powerful organization that needs your help. Right now, please click here and make a donation. If it's a stretch for you to make a big donation, click the Tens for Dems link and set up a small donation each month. If it's worth something to you to see the fundamentalists escorted out of there, click here and buy two tickets to our upcoming May 14 dinner, where you can meet hundreds of like-minded people.

Not sure yet? Come to any of our monthly community meetings and talk with us in depth, or call me at 303-681-2425. This is how you learn more and get involved. Your family and business are not safe from these people, and you have a responsibility to take action. Do it now.

Electronic Mail

2005-03-21T11:28:00.000-07:00

Progressive values give us guidance in big issues like war and sprawl, but they are equally useful in prosaic issues we encounter in our daily lives. Take, for example, electronic mail. Email is possibly the most useful technology to arrive in politics since the pen. Not so long ago, it was necessary to spend hours on the phone to organize any little group activity. Now it just takes a few minutes to compose an email. Before, you played telephone tag. Now, you just wait for an email reply.

But email is a double-edged sword. It's convenient to send out important messages to large numbers of people, but equally convenient to pollute their inboxes with juvenile fighting, or to send people their tenth copy of the latest gaffe from the president. Email takes Freedom of Speech to a whole new level, but makes it even more important than ever to promote the companion value of Responsibility.

We've seen a highly public drama of Freedom of Speech played out over the past few weeks in the Ward Churchill saga. Here we had a person who exercised his unquestionable Right to free speech, but did not exercise the companion Responsibility to respect other people and to try to avoid misunderstanding. We had someone who tried to gain attention and enrich himself by consciously acting in an irresponsible manner. Democrats believe that the government should not try to coerce someone to use their freedom of speech responsibly. The correct way to respond is to ignore the irresponsible person.

We face similar issues with electronic mail. People use email for all kinds of purposes, for good or ill, to communicate important information or to get attention. As a Party we can't restrain anyone's Send button; instead we have to rely on their sense of Responsibility.

But Democrats make an important distinction between individuals and organizations when it comes to the exercise of rights and responsibilities. For example, we don't advocate making it illegal for an individual to lie in a casual situation, but we do look for legal remedies when a corporation lies to us. The Douglas County Democratic Party is an organization, so we can, and must, restrain its freedom of speech in order to ensure that the Party acts in a responsible way.

In the case of electronic mail, this restriction comes in the form of an Electronic Mail Policy. We have adopted this policy as an interim measure to respect the individual's right to participate in Party activities without having to wade through unnecessary or irresponsible correspondence (also known as "spam"). We will be submitting the interim policy as a draft to the Rules Committee for eventual adoption by the Central Committee. This should drastically cut down on the quantity, and improve the quality, of electronic mail you receive from the Douglas Democrats.

For email you want to send to large numbers of people but which doesn't comply with the new policy, we draw your attention to our DCBlog Yahoo group. This is especially good for posting material forwarded from others. People who like what they read can then subscribe to the original mailing list and receive the content directly. You can post to this group simply by sending your contribution to dcblog@yahoogroups.com. People subscribe to this site, and can elect to receive material forwarded directly to them by email, or can request a daily compendium. This gives them control over their inbox.

For opinions and editorial matter, a good place to post your contributions is the Community Forum on Dougzilla.

The new policy spells out exactly what we will and won't broadcast to the membership. It doesn't restrict any individuals acting on their own behalf. However, I'd like to call attention to the final section of the policy, entitled "Other Requirements." We will enforce these common-sense requirements for mail we send out, but we also ask our membership to voluntarily comply in their own correspondence with other Party members. If you receive an email message that does not show the level of respect and responsibility described in these guidelines, it reflects badly on the sender. The correct response is to ignore it.

Help us find candidates

2005-03-13T08:50:00.000-07:00

Only 20 months to go before the 2006 election, so it's time to begin recruiting candidates. In particular, we need candidates for County Commissioner, Clerk & Recorder, Assessor, Treasurer, Sheriff, Surveyor, and Coroner. Even more urgent, we need people to step forward for various non-partisan races such as school board and various town boards. These are the entry-level positions in politics, where competent motivated people can win even without political experience.

One lesson we learned in 2004 is that experience and name recognition count for a lot in the state and Federal races. You endow yourself with these qualities by being elected to local offices.

If you think you might like to run for office in Douglas County, you can contact me at pdt@pdth.com. I'll put you in touch with our Strategic Planning Committee, which will get you resources, advice, and mentoring. (Our ability to help in non-partisan races is limited, but we can still point you to great resources.)

If you don't feel you can run, but might be able to help others get their start in politics, one great opportunity is to join the Democracy for Colorado Candidate Development Committee. This group will be putting on workshops and arranging training classes, such as the highly successful 21st Century Democrats training last year. To join this committee, please contact me and I'll put you in touch with the rest of the group.

In order to consistently produce great progressive candidates for state and Federal offices, we need to be serious about winning the local offices and building up experience. Democracy for Colorado is a great way to do this.

Finally, to help the Douglas Democrats plan for the 2006 county elections, we can always use more people to help us with fund-raising, identifying candidates, and helping them get their campaigns off the ground. There's a committee dedicated to just this one purpose. To join, contact Peter Burley.

Current Elections

2005-03-06T09:10:00.000-07:00

Some people might think that an odd-numbered year holds few opportunities for politically active people, but that would be wrong. While there are no partisan races this year, the ballot still holds some of the most important offices affecting our daily lives.

One of these offices is Town Council. Parker and Castle Rock both have elections on April 5 to fill vacancies in their councils, and each is lucky to have an excellent choice.

In Parker, Dianne Bailey is running in a field of five candidates. A member of the Parker Planning Commission, Dianne is committed to public service and knows how to stand up for the needs of Parker families. Parker's quality of life is under attack from traffic and water scarcity. Dianne will be the hardest-working member of the council, contributing energy and know-how to make sure the investment of existing residents is protected. To help Dianne's campaign, call her at 303-805-2380 or send her a note.

In Castle Rock, Ralph Jollensten is running to fill the District 3 seat, which includes Red Hawk and parts of The Meadows and downtown. A former Chair of the Douglas Democrats, his calm and resourcefulness built the organization from a small social group into a large and increasingly influential part of the county's public life. Castle Rock needs a balanced council, able to maintain and enhance its quality of life and deal with the complex challenges of development. To help Ralph's campaign, call him at 303-663-1286 or send him a note.

Don't forget, the election is only a month away, and ballots are mailed in two weeks. So the time to help is right now.

For the IREA Board, another great candidate is Doug Gilbert. Doug ran for County Commissioner in November. Though he didn't win, he did draw a higher percentage of the vote than any Democratic Commissioner candidate in anyone's memory. Doug is an attorney and expert in strategic planning, just what the IREA needs to shake it from its antiquated ways. He is a big supporter of Amendment 37 and renewable energy. To help Doug, contact him at 720-548-3253 or send him a note.

Yesterday was another important election, for the officers of the Colorado Democratic Party (CDP). We're very excited about the results:

	Chair:	Pat Waak
	1st Vice Chair:	Dan Slater
	2nd Vice Chair:	Margaret Atencio
	Secretary:	Carolyn Boller
	Treasurer:	Shawn O'Buckley

With this team in place, CDP will be a larger and more ambitious organization, more effective in helping counties to develop their capabilities, and especially effective in the exurban areas of the state. This is a very good thing for Douglas County, because the new team understands our potential and how to use the CDP to add value to our efforts.

We also want to thank Chris Gates for his hard work as State Chair over the past two years. He has led us successfully through the beginning of an important transformational period for CDP. The first phase of this transition has been to clean up past debts and unfinished business, and start a platform of political success on which we can build. We are extremely grateful to Chris for that; in fact his work was essential for any further progress. Now the second phase is rapid growth, bringing in more resources that we know are out there, and building a more scalable organization.

Social Security

2005-02-27T10:05:00.000-07:00

March is Social Security Month here in Douglas County, as it probably will be across the nation. For the next month, we'll have a series of meetings and speakers addressing the merits of the Social Security system as the ultimate economic safety net for our elders; starting with the Democracy for America meetup this Wednesday, March 2 (7pm, Panera Bread, Yosemite St & Park Meadows Dr, Lone Tree), and continuing with meetings in Parker and Highlands Ranch later in the month.

An astute observer might be puzzled at the nature of this debate. We hear the president talk about an imminent crisis, but we all know that's far from the truth. So why is anyone listening?

It turns out the reason the president brought it up, aside from its value as a distraction from the increasingly deadly Iraq war, is that he wants to have another debate about values. Specifically, he wants to spotlight three values that he holds dear: the first is punishment, the second is aid to struggling corporations, and the third is the nanny state.

The Social Security system, as most of us know it, is built on the concept of a social contract. Those of us in the most productive age range build a strong community and support our elders. In return, the community provides us a safety net in our old age, even if we outlive our relatives, regardless of economic vagaries like inflation and recession. It's a simple idea, and it has worked great for generations.

Of course, this system is built on the notion of responsibility as a primary motivating force. A Social Security pension is austere in the extreme, so we still have the responsibility to save for our own comfortable retirement. We are willing to be taxed for Social Security because we understand our responsibility to respect our elders.

Bush has an equally simple concept he wants to promote: punishment. If a person fails to save for their retirement, if they outlive their pension fund by failing to predict how long they will live, it's their own fault. They deserve to starve. "Compassionate conservatism," he calls it. After all, we 40-somethings know in our own hearts that we don't deserve to have someone else's grandparents become a burden on us. Right?

The second concept he feels strongly about is corporate welfare. Giving money to the elderly poor simply fuels consumption, and that's not the American way. The Bush plan does not really take 4% of Social Security away from the elderly and give it back to younger folks. That's only symbolic. What it really does is flood the stock market with $2 trillion of new money, added to the Federal deficit, to buy stocks and bonds.

Where does the money come from? The same place all Federal deficit funding comes from: by borrowing from China and other Asian nations. We sure hope they don't need the cash back any time soon, as that would create a national security crisis far greater than terrorism.

This money is supposed to be put in "safe" investments, which Bush defines as large "stable" corporations, their stocks and bonds. And that takes us to the third Bush value, which is the nanny state. We already have Keoghs, 401(k)s, and IRAs, which we can invest any way we like. The president wants to take money away from the elderly, but he's not really giving it to us: instead he wants to force us to invest this money in a way he likes.

But I don't like it. I own a small business in a field of technology. I want to invest in my own business and in other small technology businesses. These are low risk for me, because I understand them. High risk, for me, is asking me to choose between stocks and bonds. I have no idea where interest rates will be in a year: it's like asking me to gamble on whether next February will be sunnier or snowier than average. Who knows if any of these "safe" options will keep up with inflation?

So for me, creating a new type of retirement account doesn't solve a problem, it creates one, by forcing me to find a crystal ball for interest rates. Sorry, I'm busy.

For the future of the American economy, the Bush plan creates a much bigger problem, putting the entire small business sector at risk. We all know that small businesses are the ones that create truly new ideas, and that create jobs that stay in the good ol' USA. The Bush Social Security plan is a full frontal assault on small business.

You see, small businesses are not among those he considers "safe" or "stable". This $2 trillion of new money will go to large corporations which, like Wal-Mart, are free to use the new cash to prey on smaller competitors.

But that's not all. The reason the American economy is so vibrant with entrepreneurs is that we have a safety net. If our great idea doesn't work out, we know at least we won't starve. Will we be so willing to take risks if starvation is a serious possibility?

Bush's nanny state will keep us all safe, secure, and stagnant, as long as we're young. Buy into the Bush Social Security plan, and forget about American competitiveness. China will own our bonds, and India will produce the new technology. At least, we'll still have our faith.

Voter turnout reaches parity!

2005-02-24T10:15:00.000-07:00

I have great news to share regarding Douglas County voter turnout in the 11/04 election. We reached turnout parity, with Republicans and Democrats both turning out 96% of active voters. This is a huge accomplishment of our get-out-the-vote effort. Turnout was nearly the same countywide, rounding to 96% for both parties in each of the three districts.

The winning precinct was #65, with 100% Democratic turnout. This was also our top precinct in margin for Kerry. (Unfortunately, it's also one of our smallest precincts, largely undeveloped land between the Pinery and Stroh Ranch.) Second and third place were #78 and #83, both in the rural areas west and south of Castle Rock, with 99%. Last place was #43, in the NW corner of Castle Pines North with 84%, followed by #59 and #51, both in Parker, with 89% and 91% respectively.

Men and women reached parity, both scoring 96%. Married couples scored 97%, while singles scored 93% and same-sex households scored 91%. People under 30 scored 90%, those 30-65 scored 97%, and those over 65 scored 98%.

Currently there are 28,470 Democrats in the voter file, out of 149,231 voters. This is 19%, one point better than in the August 2004 database. This indicates that our voter registration efforts worked better than those of the other guys, and it also reflects the fact that we are starting the move toward registration parity that we hope to accelerate with our efforts this year.

Building Better Precincts

2005-02-20T08:40:00.000-07:00

Part of the challenge and fun of a rapidly growing party organization is the management of our precinct-level activities. The Douglas Democrats now have 148 Precinct Committee People, by far the most ever.

In previous years all of our precinct efforts were directed centrally by the Executive Committee. Even though we were divided into three districts with two Captains apiece, we didn't use that mechanism for active management. This year that will change.

Many of our new people are successful professionals at the tops of their careers, often with management and/or ownership experience in commercial or non-profit enterprises. They are very busy in their jobs, but also highly motivated to change the direction of Douglas County and the nation. They know it takes some personal sacrifice to make a difference in one's community, and they are up for it. I feel very lucky that six of them have signed on to be our District Captains.

The main goal of our Precinct Committee People this year is to build a community of Democrats in every neighborhood. We're interpreting the term "Democrat" broadly here, because we know that most of the unaffiliated voters and even a large fraction of Republicans in Douglas County share with us a vision for America that is very different from the fearful, irresponsible direction we are currently headed. So it is really a community of like-minded people that we want to build.

My vision of this community is that Democrats find power in numbers, and discover that they can do much together to improve the quality of life in Douglas County even before winning elective office. It's a part of our value system to feel a responsibility to each other, so this won't be as difficult for us as it has been for the other guys. As we rack up successful projects, such as the phone cards for troops program before Christmas, those who have been afraid to identify with us before will take a second look, and decide to join us.

Under the leadership of our Captains, we'll find many ways this year for our Precinct Committee People to be active in community-spirited projects, many of them highly localized. One of our Captains showed the way recently by organizing most of her street - people of every party - to sponsor a charitable cause. It was easy and fun: imagine if it was repeated in hundreds of streets county-wide. In addition to projects like this, our precincts will have social events, competitions, and childrens' activities to give Democrats a chance to discover each other.

Our new Captains are also hard at work developing a training program in preparation for the 2006 election. They are revising the highly successful PCP Toolkit, and are collaborating with Boulder County on development of a training class. We appreciate our Precinct Committee People, and will show it by giving them the best available opportunities, know-how, and tools.

Finally, the Captains are building a new front door of the party, in the form of monthly community meetings modeled on the amazing Highlands Ranch Democrats. The first Parker meeting is Tuesday evening (7pm, Parker Library), and the Castle Rock meeting is coming back soon after a few months' hiatus. We'll direct new people to these meetings as their first exposure to the Democratic Party.

Thanks to our Captains and Precinct Committee People, the Douglas Democrats will soon be the largest community service organization in the county in terms of active people. That will build a foundation for future success in winning elective office. The myth of a conservative exurbia is coming to an end.

County Chair Acceptance Speech

2005-02-13T08:36:00.000-07:00

Here is my acceptance speech after being elected Douglas County Democratic Party Chair on February 12.

I've been incredibly lucky to get involved with the Democratic Party at a major turning point. Just when it looked like we might become irrelevant, we've started a big comeback. Just when it looked like we might disappear, suddenly here's a room full of highly skilled people wanting to change the world.

Well, the change has already started.

Just compare our candidates in 2004 with those of earlier years. Every one of them did better than before in Douglas County, some by more than ten points. This is huge progress and people are noticing.

Our biggest gains were in the smallest races, like commissioner, and state house, and state senate. There's a very important lesson in that.

Forget about liberal vs. conservative or anywhere in between.

The rebirth of the Democratic Party won't begin in Washington, and it won't be about taxes or culture wars. It will begin right here, and it'll be about economic growth, and health care, and children, and college, and water, and traffic, and pollution.

With these practical issues, our values of Freedom, Responsibility and Opportunity – the moral center - can improve people's daily lives.

This is our county too! Don't think for a moment that we can't change the state and nation from right here in Douglas County.

We Douglas Democrats will show the other counties how it's done. We'll keep improving relentlessly in each election until we can win any race. We'll be organized, we'll communicate, and we'll keep attracting more great people like you.

You're not just a tool of the party, you're the foundation. It's your ideas that make us creative. You write the checks and knock on the doors. You make the calls and write the letters. The Democrats are back because of you! Thank you!

Party Infrastructure

2005-02-06T07:56:00.000-07:00

In my last posting, I described the need for the Colorado Democratic Party to build statewide teamwork in order to counter Republican divisiveness and avoid the fate of a polka-dot state (targeted blue dots in a sea of red). Now I'd like to offer a vision of how to acomplish this.

Why not create a party infrastructure, a set of services we all expect from a political party, that only a statewide organization can do well? Here's what I mean by that:

An up-to-date complete voter database with complete voting history; up-to-date changes of address from the Post Office; appended phone numbers, zip+4s, census data, and selected consumer demographics and analysis; supported by training, technical support, and regional user groups. Let's treat our Precinct Committee People with respect by giving them the best possible tools.

Legal and compliance assistance to counties, districts, and candidates. It shouldn't come as a surprise that county parties can't afford their own legal counsel, and the last thing we need as a party is having each county make up its own interpretation of Amendment 27 and the state statutes. Maybe we could even push the Secretary of State to enforce state law against corrupt Republican campaigns.

Polling and public opinion analysis. Just get us some basic data sets for turnout prediction, persuasion, and GOTV modeling, and provide services that help each county to target its resources and aim its message.

Media support, including production assistance, media management, and statewide advertising to reinforce our message and build a positive brand image for the Democratic party. Prove that the Democrats know how to make interesting TV and radio commercials, and drive home the fact that we solve real problems and improve the state's quality of life. Get some control over the media: it's inexcusable that the silly flap over CU's Prof. Churchill should distract us for days from the important task of rebuilding our ailing university system.

Meetup and grassroots support, such as sending agendas and materials directly to precinct committee people and other grassroots activists statewide. This is one of the best things the state can do to build local organizations in places where they do not yet exist or are dysfunctional.

Regional and statewide meetings and events to build a statewide Democratic community (both grassroots and leadership). Encourage people to have some fun outside their own counties and learn from each other.

Training for county and district leaders, and for candidates. This is especially important at the lowest levels, where we build the farm teams. We can't hope to hold onto power over time if we don't have a continuous stream of new talent. (A side note: am I the only person who thinks the ruckus over Miles vs. Salazar is really just a reaction to our party's lack of attention to developing new talent?)

Support the unconventional, the diversity we are famous for. Help candidates who have the courage to break out of the obsolete mold of conservative vs liberal. Help counties that may be traditionally red but can broaden our base and deliver new Democratic votes.

These obviously cost money, a lot more money than the party has spent in recent history, maybe a million dollars a year. It's senseless to talk about merely raising money and sending it to counties, as very few counties have the know-how to build this kind of infrastructure, and we don't need 64 copies of it.

From people who aspire to head a large and very important organization, it's not too much to ask for a business plan to show how much initiatives like this will cost, how the money will be raised, and convince us that it will be managed well.

State Central Committee

2005-01-30T11:17:00.000-07:00

Part of the county reorganization agenda coming up on February 12 is the election of ten members of the State Central Committee (SCC) to represent Douglas County. According to Colorado Democratic Party (CDP) rules, the SCC "shall be the supreme governing body of the Party." It meets at least once a year, with additional meetings if called by the Chair or if at least 10% of the membership petition for a meeting. This year the SCC will have approximately 400 members including elected officials, officers and other members designated by the rules.

The newly-elected SCC will meet in Denver on March 5 to elect new officers and conduct other routine business. Dominating the meeting will be the State Chair election, where the incumbent Chris Gates, President of the National Civic League, competes with challenger Pat Waak, a member of the Weld County Democrats Executive Committee and long time administrator of environmental non-profits such as the National Audubon Society.

Many in Colorado would make the county races for SCC into a referendum on the State Chair. Some would go so far as to make it a referendum on a personal battle between Chris Gates and Mike Miles, former candidate for US Senate. This would be a huge mistake.

To me, the SCC election will determine two questions: 1) Will the CDP represent all the Democrats in the state; and 2) Will the SCC do more than sit like bumps on a log at an annual meeting? The answers to these questions will determine whether Colorado can elect a Democratic governor, and whether it will be blue or red in the next presidential election.

At the 2004 SCC meeting, members sat silent and rubber-stamped a meager budget, accompanied by a woefully inadequate financial report. Modest additional donations later ended up being divided among a few State Senate and House candidates. For example, targeted Senate Candidates received $18,000 each. Non-targeted candidates got their phone calls returned, usually. A single paid staffer worked hard to provide some basic services to State House candidates. At the same time, wealthy donors and independent groups pushed spending for certain targeted Democrats over $1 million apiece.

This type of spending won't make Colorado blue, it will make it polka-dot: small blue dots in a sea of deep red; a divided state. Many of us in the red counties see our future as blue, with or without CDP support. We'd get there faster as part of a statewide team, however.

More importantly, the state Party would be far wealthier and more vibrant if it were to adopt a systems approach similar to what I described for the Howard Dean primary campaign. Dean used the internet to mobilize wealthy suburbanites, many in red areas, to donate to a central organization. A portion of the proceeds were returned in the form of materials and support for nationwide meetups, where more volunteers and donors were recruited in red and blue areas alike. The remainder of the money, and much of the meetups' volunteer labor, were directed toward targeted primaries and caucuses. Red areas received invaluable support for local organizing, launching their long-term drive toward blue; while fueling a vast volunteer force and fund raising machine.

I'm not suggesting that the CDP exactly imitate the Dean campaign. Dean is the gold standard at the moment, but perhaps we can do even better. What I am suggesting is to let the rich donors and 527s do the targeting of races, and instead direct state party efforts toward mutually beneficial statewide teamwork.

And that leads me to the second question: the role of the SCC. If I'm elected Chair of the Douglas County Democrats, I'll also become a member of the SCC. Yesterday I attended a meeting of a new technology committee to help CDP's fourth and newest paid staffer, Mike Weissman, to build a far better voter file than we had last year. It's a very important initiative, part of the CDP's core mission, and I'm glad to contribute my skills. Will other SCC members do likewise, pitch in and have a direct impact on the CDP's success? And will they demand accountability from their leadership in return? I want this to be the basis for selecting new SCC members.

I'm not taking a position yet on the State Chair race, as I'll meet the challenger for the first time tomorrow evening. But my main question to both the incumbent and challenger is one of vision: will the state be polka-dot, or will it be blue? Will Colorado Democrats be divided between complacent haves and dispirited have-nots, or will they form a powerful statewide team?

Regrouping

2005-01-25T15:37:00.000-07:00

The big election is over, and now come the rites of the even-year winter: reveling in our great success in the statehouse, and mourning over lost lives and stealing from our children in Washington; soul-searching and recrimination over the electoral losses, but optimism that we are stronger than ever and ready to get 'em next time.

One of the great events of the even-year winter is the community brainstorm, where the most active members of the progressive community come together in their political and grassroots organizations to examine their mission and set a plan for the coming two years.

This year the brainstorming exercise is especially vibrant, because of the number of strong organizations that are taking root: for example, Democracy for Colorado, Be The Change, ThisMatters.org, and county Democratic parties. These groups are filled with amazingly motivated and skilled people.

While a few side shows of personality conflicts are evident, especially old vs. new, the discussion for the most part is optimistic and forward-looking. Energetic progressives are eager to reclaim our communities from the pollution and traffic that Republicans seem to value. We understand responsibility. Democratic legislators get to work rebuilding the remnants of our once-great universities, returning the promise of opportunity for our children. Plans are laid to push repressive fundamentalists back into their caves.

So many people and groups share the same vision of freedom, responsibility, and opportunity that one of our biggest challenges is to keep from duplicating each others' efforts or interfering with each other. The ability of these groups to coordinate is limited by law, but a few general principles help them focus.

One of the most important principles is to play to one's strengths. For example, county party organizations are great at blanketing a geographic area and reaching every voter, while grassroots activists are better at working social networks and well-defined social groups. Certain organizations such as Democracy for Colorado are especially good with technology and statewide networking, while others such as Be the Change are especially proficient at rallying the base. No group should pretend to be all-encompassing, but should recognize and welcome the strengths of others.

One lesson clearly learned from the recent election is that the local races are where the action is. In Douglas County we gained only one point in the presidential race, but gained ten points or more in local races. We hope to be able to win races at every level eventually, but the first ones we win will be local and state level. These are the races that most directly affect people's lives, where tangible issues like schools, traffic, and economic development are more immediate than abstract and meaningless "culture wars."

Another thing we've learned is that we need our local party to be very strong organizationally: to have clear divisions of responsibility, to reinforce and reward good work, to seek out new skills and alliances, and to communicate very, very well. Fortunately, the brainstorming exercise has shown that we all understand this, and are ready to get down to work. I am very optimistic about our prospects.

Democratic Organization

2005-01-16T09:11:00.000-07:00

"Which do you like better, the sky or the ground?" My daughter used to pester us with questions like this all the time when she was five years old. Adults are supposed to be past this phase, but not when it comes to debating the organizational structure of the Democratic Party.

There are leaders and organizations who claim that the grassroots is everything, that the Party can win if enough people take it upon themselves to organize their neighborhoods and talk to their friends. This group would have a minimal central organization, raise little money, and instead orchestrate an army of volunteer foot soldiers.

On the other side, there are those who believe the Party should only be concerned with media and the expansion of an existing power base. They prefer a large central organization and don't trust volunteers. They raise large amounts of money and spend it on unpleasant TV commercials.

The truth, of course, is that you need both sides in order to win: great games in the air and on the ground. Ask any candidate who has won in an adverse-leaning district, or ask any great football coach.

The Democratic Party as it currently operates at the national and state levels (at least in our state) prefers the second model, focusing on the air war. Those of us in the trenches receive little or no support from the state or national organizations, are not trusted with planning information or data, and are very much on our own. The national and state organizations allocate resources in a short-term rational way and thus ignore red counties that can't immediately be won.

What appears rational for the centralized organization is supremely wasteful and short-sighted for the party as a whole. A large fraction of the nation's Democrats live in red counties that could be moved toward purple or blue. But the party makes little attempt to build or reinforce Democratic organizations in these areas. Prospective volunteers aren't recruited, trained, or equipped, but instead are made to feel low-priority. All this manpower lies unused.

This creates great challenges for the red county Democratic organization. Organizing and motivating volunteers is more difficult without outside support, but such support won't be forthcoming unless the organization somehow manages on its own effort to improve its electoral performance so an immediate win is possible.

Sometimes people imagine that "knowing the right people" in Democratic high places will somehow unleash a fairy godmother to infuse cash and aid into these currently Republican areas, but such long-term investment never happens in practice in a bottom-line oriented culture. Maintaining good relations with the powers-that-be is important, but most of the job is good old-fashioned hard work to strengthen the ground war using only local resources.

The most intriguing thing about Howard Dean's candidacy for DNC Chair is that he understands how to improve both the air and ground games. He proved it in his presidential primary campaign where he showed how 50-state strategies in the air and on the ground can reinforce each other, the sum being much more than its parts.

Using the internet, Dean showed that wealthy grassroots suburban Democrats, previously isolated, could be orchestrated to open their wallets en masse to feed a centralized campaign machine. He also showed how guidance and materials sent by the central machine to grassroots meetups nationwide could help local volunteers build their own effective independent ground operations.

Regardless of who wins the state and national Democratic chairs, this lesson in modern Democratic Party organizing must not be lost. It's a systems approach to building a much bigger and more effective Party, by making all the parts - local and national, red-state and blue-state, work together and reinforce each other.

Sprawl

2005-01-09T06:02:00.000-07:00

A system of political values is useful if it helps us manage the complexities of real-world practical problems. Here's a good one: sprawl. It's hard to define sprawl, but we know it when we see it: street after street of big, standardized, self-absorbed boxes. More than an aesthetic problem, sprawl is a cultural, environmental, and economic problem.

The cultural aspects of sprawl aren't obvious until you actually live in it, until you drive home, click the garage door opener, park, and click the door closed. You've made it from your workplace to your home without ever breathing an ounce of outside air, let alone interacting with a neighbor. Is this really convenient if you have the longest commute of any county in the state? Being confined to your car isn't Freedom.

And if you wanted to interact with neighbors, what would you do? You could go out your front door and stand in the street, but not another human will hear the echo of your voice in the long string of blank-faced garage doors. You could visit your subdivision's community building, but no one will be there unless a group has it reserved (in which case, you're not welcome). You could go knock on a neighbor's door, but that would disturb their privacy. And besides, do you know their names? Loneliness may be Freedom for a few people, but not for most.

When I lived in a compartment in the typical sprawl tract of Clarke Farms, the highlight of my stay was after a big snowstorm on a Saturday morning, when everyone was out shoveling. I met more neighbors that day than any other time in my residence there. People had to meet, because they were stuck and couldn't get away. A sprawl tract is not really a community: it's your own little world, neatly stacked among thousands of other people's little worlds.

Sprawl is an environmental and economic problem because it puts miles between you and every other place you want to go: your workplace, grocery store, school, recreation center, coffee shop, etc. Sprawl makes it impossible to walk to any place useful, or any place with any sense of community. Sprawl can't allow commercial land uses such as coffee shops or stores anywhere near the houses, any more than a small child can allow a single pea anywhere near his mashed potatoes. Sprawl makes Opportunity more distant, robbing us of the time and energy to pursue it.

Sprawl is just about the least efficient form of housing known to man: too dense to allow open space, services, or outdoor enjoyment near people's homes, but too sparse for public transportation or efficient utilities. Land use policy that encourages sprawl is very expensive in commute time, pollution, and public services. Every public service costs more: water pipes, power lines, pavement, police and fire response, snow removal, and especially transportation. Government that allows sprawl is irresponsible, wasting the taxpayer's money.

So why does our county government deprive residents of Freedom by confining them to their cars, show lack of fiscal Responsibility by necessitating overly expensive public services, and create such separation between us and Opportunity? It's because they don't have the strength and skill to promote citizen values in their dealings with developers and employers. I think my Freedom and Opportunity are far more important than a developer's ability to make a quick buck. I want elected officials who think so, too.

People move to our county because of the excellent schools and natural beauty, and would live in a large cardboard box if necessary to get into the county. If only one kind of house is available, people will buy it. Developers build one kind of house because, being good businesspeople, they can optimize their profit in that way. Developers don't build great, community-friendly and kid-friendly neighborhoods because no one holds them responsible to do so.

What can we do about it? Two major things to promote sustainable development:

First, strengthen and defend our planning boards, and provide them the training, expertise, and standards they need in order to recognize and mandate great neighborhood designs in new developments. Don't let developers get away with building more garage streets, and don't let them turn our county into smog heaven. Require compact development, best for efficient public services, with stores, schools, and day care close by. Maximize the number of kids who can walk to school. The nation's wealthiest, fastest-growing county has no excuse not to be a leader in this.

Second: entice quality employers to locate here in our county, near where the state's best-educated workforce lives. Encourage the growth of local small businesses. Don't force us to waste our county's brainpower stuck in traffic in the state's longest commutes. Bring the jobs here so we spend less time in our cars and more time playing with our children.

Let me introduce myself

2005-01-02T09:58:00.000-07:00

I'm Paul Thompson of Castle Rock, Colorado. I'm part of the flood of new (in tenure, but not age) Democrats who came into the party in the past 2 years, motivated by candidates like Howard Dean and Joanna Conti who feel the Democratic Party can be revived and once again come into a position of leadership in our nation.

Douglas County may seem like an odd place for active Democrats, but count me as one of many people who have great hope for the county. Sure, we're more than 50% Republican, and the wealthiest county in the state.

But people here believe in Freedom, in live-and-let-live, the government staying out of our personal lives and families. A great many here own small businesses, and want large corporations to stop eating our lunch and stifling innovation.

People here believe we have a Responsibility to our children, to the environment, and to the world. We don't identify with the notions that our children should pay our taxes for us, that nature is ours to ruin, or that torture is an American prerogative.

Folks here believe in Opportunity, that anyone willing to work hard deserves a solid chance at success. We know that our education system, and our creativity and ambition, are what put America at the top of the world economy, and we don't want to see that eroded.

It's true that our county has a good number of lifelong Republicans who might not have the presence of mind to re-examine their values like Joanna Conti did. But a much larger fraction are young families without a strong political identity, who move here and change their affiliation to Republican because they've been led to believe it's required of them. We can change that, and fairly quickly, by reaching out to them, showing that we are the party that cares about the future of our children.

I think we can do that, which is why I'm running for the Chairmanship of the Douglas County Democrats.

Douglas County Facts:
(rank among the 11 large Colorado counties)

Median household income: $83,000 (#1)
Adults with Bachelor's degree: 52% (#2)
Homes that are owner-occupied: 88% (#1)
Population under 18 years: 32% (#1)
Households with self-employment income: 18% (#2)
Mean travel time to work: 29 minutes (#1)
People who identify themselves as religious adherents: 28% (#11)
Employed people in professional occupations: 26% (#2)
Employed people in management and financial occupations: 26% (#1)

Notes:
In each category where Douglas was ranked #2, Boulder was #1.
The most significant professional fields in Douglas County are computers, architecture, and engineering.

Infrastructure

2004-12-19T10:00:00.000-07:00

When Congress authorized funding for the Interstate Highway System in 1956, it launched one of the greatest periods of economic growth in our history. Jobs from the highway construction itself were important, but the biggest effect by far was the economic activity enabled by the system. Manufactured goods could be moved efficiently from any factory to any city or town in the nation, cities were given room to grow, families were given a compelling reason to own a car, and whole new industries sprang up to serve the new growth and mobility.

The private sector could not have built the Interstate Highway System. Taxpayers complaining "that money's all mine, mine, mine!" could not have built it. What built the system was a public consensus that the United States was greater than the sum of its citizens, that it could do great things working together. That same ambition won World War II and landed men on the moon.

What's interesting to note about the Interstate Highway System is that it began with a national investment, but this expenditure was less than 1% of Federal taxes, and only about one-tenth of one percent of the nation's economic activity. Practically all of the benefit of the system was realized by individual and private sector spending in the marketplace, even though it could not have happened without the initial Federal investment.

The failure in more recent decades to make such monumental accomplishments, is a monumental failure of leadership and imagination, by both parties. America has turned inward, into the self. Leaders pander to selfishness instead of inspiring us to great achievements together.

It may well be up to the youngest generation of Democrats to shake us out of our stupor, to build the foundation of the next great economic expansion. There is much to be done, the most obvious investments being to build out a universal high-speed internet extending Opportunity to every small town in the nation; construction of a high-speed rail network to finally overcome the growing dysfunction of the airline industry and move people faster from home to the customer's office; construction of a renewable energy system that reduces our vulnerability to fossil fuel scarcity and allows us to launch more energy-intensive industries that currently are out of reach; the cure of diseases that currently weigh down the economy with an unsustainable burden of health care costs; and even the renewed exploration of space. The private sector isn't doing these things – it can't do them, and all would be less expensive than the Interstate Highway System. So what's stopping us?

Democratic leaders are the ones whose values of Freedom, Responsibility, and Opportunity can finally pull us out of the doldrums of selfishness, to remind us of why we are a great nation. Infrastructure investment to nurture new industries and enhance the productivity of our society isn't caused by the magical invisible hand of random economic actors, but by strong leadership inspiring us all to work together toward shared goals. This is the future of the Democratic Party, and the Democratic Party is the future of the nation.

Political themes: Economic growth requires infrastructure investment. Imaginative leadership will launch the next great economic expansion. If Democrats don't do this, no one will.

Fulfillment

2004-12-18T07:25:00.000-07:00

Democrats believe everyone deserves the Freedom – and has the Responsibility – to reach their full potential in whatever way they want to define it. Some people define this as upward mobility, others as contribution to the community or to one's children. Many see their goals as a combination of these.

There's a clear message we want to communicate to the voters, a message they already know but need to be reminded: the Democratic Party is for people, at any stage of life and in any station in the economy, who feel they can do better, who have goals they have not yet met and dreams still in their future. Democratic policies create the path of upward mobility, and ensure the Freedom to pursue our goals. Those who have no dreams for themselves or the world, who want everything to stay the same, can join the other party.

Today American people and American companies are footloose and nimble. We've rejected the concept of lifetime employment at one firm; it just isn't us. Americans like to move around and change jobs to get ahead, or to work part-time in order to pursue other goals, and companies like the freedom to grow, shrink, and adapt to market conditions. These are good for the economy and good for us, but our institutions need to adapt to this new reality.

One adaptation that has been slow in coming is the evolution of organized labor. The fundamental role of labor unions, to give workers more power in their asymmetric relationship with corporations, is still just as valid today as it was 40 years ago. But changes in the economy have reduced the applicability and influence of unions, so their membership as a percent of the workforce has declined.

Unions were a primary driving force in the creation of the middle class, helping people move up from poverty. Today unions are not meeting this need, and government policy in general is reducing the standard of living of a large fraction of the population. No one wants a repeat of the civil unrest that gave birth to unionism in the first place, but we can see history repeating right in front of us.

It's time for a new legal framework for organized labor, and a new purpose, returning to its primary duty as an advocate for the upwardly mobile worker. Unions should not only negotiate to secure fair wages, but should help each individual negotiate the employment path through life within a trade or profession. This means helping people and jobs find each other; assisting with the procurement of insurance, retirement, and unemployment plans; facilitating networking; developing meaningful ways for workers to compete and be rewarded on the basis of skill and experience (even as they move among companies); and adding value to the workforce by building and certifying practical job skills needed by business through job retraining and lifelong learning.

Right now Federal policy is utterly failing to recognize the need felt by both business and labor to modernize the system of employment benefits, especially health insurance, unemployment, disability, and retirement. The goal is to give business more flexibility and workers more opportunity, but employer-based benefit plans work in the opposite direction. Small businesses, especially, suffer from the administrative burden of benefit plans. It is time to move to an employee-based benefit system, with strong incentives in law for everyone to participate, with large risk pools regardless of employment status. Employees would select their own benefit plans, with help from a reinvigorated organized labor.

Political themes: Democrats represent the upwardly mobile. Organized labor can be reinvigorated by serving workers' mobility needs and adding value to the labor force. Need to move to an employee-based benefits system.

Competition

2004-12-17T08:39:00.000-07:00

Democrats trust competition and the free market, but we do not imbue the market with supernatural powers to remain fair and competitive on its own. A major role of government is to defend the level playing field.

There are several strains of thought within the Democratic Party about the relative roles of business and government within the economy. One school, which might be termed strong-government, believes the government should take an activist role in the economy, directly determining the outcomes of economic processes. During the New Deal this thinking was widely shared, but today it is relatively uncommon, if not quite dead.

An opposing school of thought may be called weak government, or laissez-faire, or market fundamentalism. Proponents believe anything that happens in the market, even monopoly power or negative externalities such as pollution, are inherently good, and the government should stay out of it even if individual Freedom is compromised.

Most Democrats today advocate a third school, where there is a balance of power between business and government. In this system we rely primarily on competitive markets but the government takes the role of referee to ensure that the market remains truly competitive and fair, and that Freedom is protected. Regulation is therefore concerned with process rather than product, striving to ensure equal opportunity but not equal outcomes for all. This is the approach of small but effective government.

Democrats generally accept the concept of free competition based on price and value, and want the markets to behave in this way. However, we don't accept that markets automatically have the characteristics of a "perfect market," such as legal behavior, numerous competitors, perfect information, zero transaction costs, or zero externalities. We assume that corporations, driven by competitive pressures, will try to expand the field of competition by exploiting market imperfections. The role of government is to keep the competition in bounds.

One way that corporations often step out of bounds is through consolidation. A perfect market requires that there be a large enough number of competitors that none have the power to control or shape the market to their advantage. However, a firm with a stronger cash position might want to increase its advantage by buying its competitors or pushing them out of business. Once a firm becomes large and powerful enough, valid competition essentially disappears.

Another way corporations stretch the rules is to shop for the worst referees, or simply buy them off. Many third-world countries have relatively weak governments that are easily pushed around, where environmental and labor laws, and principles of Freedom, are easily violated. We mustn't let America become this sort of third-world country.

It's a sign of moral deterioration in our culture when organizations fail to respect fair competition and sportsmanship. When companies freely report false accounting data, or when political organizations intimidate voters or manipulate election results, the loser is Freedom. We the people are the victims when the government referee is weak and ineffective.

Today we have the situation where a few corporations are so powerful that they dictate policy to government, essentially neutralizing the government's ability to meet its own responsibility to protect individual Freedom. Like out-of-control players, corporations feel free to leap from the playing field and attack the customers, to compete on the basis of who can get away with taking the most steroids. It's time for government to become a more effective referee, to restore the type of fair competition we all want.

Political themes: Importance of the level playing field. Perfect competition requires a good referee, a small but effective government.

Diversity

2004-12-16T10:43:00.000-07:00

A key reason why America is the world's creative engine is its diversity. People immigrate from all over the world because of the promise of opportunity, but to a great extent this opportunity arises because of the diversity of immigrants. We are the only nation in the world where this self-perpetuating gift is at work, and that's why we have such a strong and lasting competitive advantage.

If there's one thing we ask of Federal immigration policy, it's don't kill the golden goose. Our goal should be to maintain a vibrant, diverse population, with meaningful contributions from every corner of the earth. Many countries have fallen victim to xenophobia, shut their doors to immigrants, and fallen behind. That must not happen to us.

So our ability to accept immigrants should be limited only by our ability to bring them into the economy. We generally rely on market forces, the demand for labor, to regulate this. It is sensible policy to accept more immigrants in times of employment growth and fewer at times of high unemployment, but we should never cut off the flow or intervene in opposition to the needs of the labor market.

It is our responsibility – as well as being in our economic interest – to help immigrants through the transition to American life, in particular by helping them learn English as quickly as possible. New arrivals must adapt to the same concepts of Freedom and Responsibility that the rest of us value, including the Freedom of equal protection under the law, and the Responsibility to pay taxes and contribute to the community. Our immigration policy needs a practical legal framework that ensures that these freedoms and responsibilities happen together.

Political themes: Diversity is America's "golden goose" of creative economic development. Immigrants deserve help adapting to American life, including learning English. Immigrants have the same rights and responsibilities as the rest of Americans.

Entrepreneurship

2004-12-15T09:56:00.000-07:00

Democrats' support for "the little guy" extends to the individual entrepreneur, willing to leave the safety of a corporate job to take a risk on a good idea, to reach for the American Dream. If the US economy is based on being the world's creative engine, then entrepreneurship must be encouraged.

Somehow the Republican party has managed to capture the mantle of "business-friendly," presenting its big business favoritism as good for all business. This is a myth we haven't refuted. Government policy friendly to big business puts smaller competitors at a disadvantage. Examples of such policies are complex tax laws, encouragement of skyrocketing health care costs, the use of litigation instead of regulation for consumer protection, turning a blind eye to anti-competitive corporate behavior, and supporting industry consolidation.

We have to start distinguishing large from small businesses, streamline the relationship between government and small companies, and communicate to the public that the entrepreneur is the source of economic growth and jobs that stay in the USA. One thing stopping would-be entrepreneurs from jumping from the safety of corporate America is the cost of health insurance. Today pharmaceutical companies focus their research on long-term disease management because this generates large, stable cash flow. Why cure rheumatoid arthritis when you can make thousands per month over a patient's entire lifetime with Remicade? There is no incentive for drug companies to look for medicines that prevent or cure disease, since by their nature such drugs would have a limited lifespan on the market.

Government can't force companies to focus on less-profitable product lines, but it can foster a competitive market in such products by performing such research under Federal funding, and encourage researchers to commercialize the results as entrepreneurs. This happened extensively under the Clinton administration, contributing to economic growth. Now it needs to be done consistently over a long period to bring down the cost of health care.

Universal access to health care is another concept that would bring down costs. Much of health insurance administration is concerned with determining eligibility for coverage, and a large amount is spent on emergency room care for the uninsured, the most expensive possible way of providing service. Here universal coverage would provide a much more efficient market.

Government policy should serve the needs of small business in many other ways, such as resisting industry consolidation, providing small business capital, punishing anti-competitive corporate behavior, teaching the values and skills of entrepreneurship in schools and universities, providing a streamlined regulatory structure for small businesses with concurrent protection from litigation, protecting intellectual property rights of university researchers, making health insurance and pensions more portable (employee-based rather than employer-based), and expecting the largest businesses to give more back to their communities.

In suburbia the American Dream is a huge driving force, a motivator for voters. Everyone dreams of being their own boss, and of their children's success in the world. The Democratic Party should be the promoter of this dream.

Political themes: Entrepreneurs produce economic growth and jobs that stay in America. Promote prevention, cure, and universal access as the means of reducing health insurance costs. Make government policy friendly to small business. We represent the American Dream.

Improvement

2004-12-14T09:49:00.000-07:00

Democrats believe in continuous improvement, that no matter how well we understand or do something, we can always strive to do better. We apply this philosophy in public policy, in our approach to values, and in our understanding of the world.

In our approach to Opportunity, we see public policy as an enabling force, that makes more opportunities available to as many people as possible, and that prepares people to attain better outcomes through their own effort. We see the world as imperfect, as always changing, and we believe we have a responsibility to make it better by working together.

We embrace the quality movement in industry, and believe it also applies to public policy. Policy results can be measured, and better policies are those that yield better outcomes. Policies that don't perform well by objective measures should be dropped.

Democrats accept that different people have different values, and that values often come into conflict. It's our responsibility to find the best way to avoid or resolve conflicts so we can all move forward together. We see it as essential to a peaceful society that we help people to understand and appreciate other cultures, to be less fearful of others who are different. It is a responsibility of cultural self-discipline to refrain from backsliding into an us-vs-them mentality.

No person is perfect, but we give people the benefit of the doubt and assume they can improve. As a matter of policy we make tools and resources available to help people improve their own lives, which we see as a responsibility of each individual. Nobody is beyond redemption or reconciliation.

We trust the Scientific Method as the main process for finding practical truth, the understanding of the world that allows us to invent new things and make material progress. This is the type of science that should be taught in schools.

We tolerate beliefs contrary to established science, and will consider them in public policy if they produce testable hypotheses and meet the other requirements of the Scientific Method. This is an important means by which we make scientific progress. However, we do not believe primary education is the right place for this process to play out.

Lifelong learning is a responsibility of every individual in a changing world. We must not deny ourselves Opportunity by refusing to learn new skills. At the same time as it promotes progress, government must encourage and enable people to keep up, so progress doesn't erode our human capital or competitive position in the world.

Political themes: Continuous improvement. Measurement of policy outcomes. Need to improve our tolerance and understanding of others. Importance of the Scientific Method. Nobody is beyond redemption or reconciliation. Lifelong learning to maintain our competitive position in the world.

Creativity

2004-12-13T09:33:00.000-07:00

One of the most significant trends in the US economy over the past two decades is globalization, the interdependence of economies around the globe. Because of economic development in countries like China and India, and inexpensive telecommunications, it is increasingly possible for many jobs – especially middle class jobs – to be done less expensively overseas.

Corporations move jobs overseas to reduce costs and maintain profits, as well as to be close to their new customers. This is good for corporations and their existing shareholders, but what about the rest of America? Even though a majority of American families own at least a few shares of stock, only a very tiny fraction own enough stock to make a living on the profits. The rest of us need jobs.

Without an active industrial policy to maintain the competitive advantage of our workforce, the equalizing effect of global competition will give us the same standard of living as India, and the same caste system. This is not what we mean by Freedom. Corporations increasingly don't care whether labor comes from the USA or China, but Americans do care. Someone has to look out for the competitiveness of the American worker, and that would be the Democratic Party.

The American workforce is not the low-cost producer of goods and services, and never will be. But we are the high-value producer, the maker of the truly new things that create new industries, that the world wants to buy. We are the world's creative engine.

Fundamental to our future are the thousands of new small businesses started by entrepreneurs with great ideas. Federal, state, and local policies toward business should be very friendly toward new business formation by individual entrepreneurs risking their own capital and ideas. We need to grease the skids of innovation, make it as easy as possible for a creative person to leave the safety of a steady job for the chance of entrepreneurial success.

A creative economy requires an abundance of basic research in government and university settings, that can then serve a constant flow of new products and services. We're not talking about GE finding a more efficient light bulb; what we need is research with higher economic risk than a corporation can undertake, with a higher potential payoff. As soon as China or India learn to commoditize one of our inventions, we need to be ready to move on to the next one, not wait in a recession and jobless recovery for the next great idea to come along.

Education has a fundamental role in the US creative advantage. It is of the highest strategic importance that our universities remain the best in the world, that students from every background arrive in college fully prepared, and that the affordability of college is not a barrier to advancement. Increasingly, college education is the ticket to the middle class.

In suburbs full of children, one of the best messages we can project is hope for their future. We expect our children to be well-educated, but will that keep their jobs from being shipped to India? Being the creative engine of the world is what gives them hope.

Political themes: Corporations don't care where their workers live, but Americans do. We are the world's high-value producer, its creative engine. Importance of entrepreneurship and a constant flow of new ideas. Education as the ticket to the middle class. Democrats are the best hope for our children's economic future.

Responsibility to the world

2004-12-11T07:58:00.000-07:00

America's responsibility to the world is to exert moral leadership. Because of our commitment to human rights, we must demonstrate to the world how a free society behaves, and that a democracy has nothing to fear and much to offer its citizens. As the world's creative engine, we bring new ideas and technologies into the world and use them to better the human condition.

With regard to the use of military power, most Democrats believe in the concept of Just War, a part of Christian theology since the fourth century. In order for a war to be Just, it must be for the purpose of redressing an actual wrong, such as an attack or imminent threat of attack, it must be purely for the purpose of restoring peace, must have a reasonable chance of accomplishing this objective, and must be a last resort after all other options are tried.

Many Democrats believe the Iraq war was not Just, because there was no imminent threat of attack, because our intelligence capability was not used effectively first, and because it was foreseeable that the current situation almost two years later is no more peaceful than the situation in 1992. This is still a very relevant question because of the danger of using it as a precedent for future foreign policy. The imposition of hegemony or empire is not a just cause for war. A society can't be made to adopt our values by force.

Democrats need to re-establish our credibility to defend the nation, in a manner consistent with our values and moral leadership obligation. We can do this by developing all our resources, including the military, intelligence, diplomacy, economic power, and the power of our values. Without these, we're fighting blindfolded with our hands bound, able only to lash out with our boots.

The military is a very blunt instrument, not the right solution to every problem. What we spend on intelligence is a tiny fraction of what we spend on the military, and that will have to change now that the inadequacy of our intelligence system has been exposed. We should be the leading supporter of statesmanship and international peace-keeping institutions. As the world's most powerful nation by far, we have nothing to prove about our military capability.

The impulse to react to every problem with violence is a serious problem in our culture, exacerbated by media and political leaders like Arnold Schwartzenegger, and is contrary to American values. The time-honored tradition of using our brains and ingenuity must be restored. We need to hold such leaders accountable for the damage they cause to the culture, the harm to the value of responsibility.

Part of our responsibility to the world, as its richest nation, is to foster economic development. In the Middle East, this is not only an altruistic obligation, but a national security imperative. Even the Islamic world has a competition of ideas. We need to make a serious effort to counter-balance the Islamic madrassas, which crank out a continuous stream of new terrorists by teaching a hateful ideology, with quality, secular schools and infrastructure that give the people of the Middle East some real hope, a real chance at joining the world economy and thriving in it. This will cost far less than the Iraq war. Failing to do this is both irresponsible and anti-security.

Political themes: Intelligence as a superior alternative to preemption: brains over brawn. Five pillars of security: military, intelligence, diplomacy, economy, and values. Just War. Give the Islamic world hope, not hate.

Community responsibility to itself

2004-12-10T10:33:00.000-07:00

We make an important distinction between personal responsibility and organizational responsibility. Voluntary personal responsibility and freedom go together because of our belief in self-discipline and the conscience. We do not ascribe these attributes to corporations and governments, because these organizations diffuse responsibility over a large number of people.

Our public and private organizations have a public trust, to operate efficiently and effectively in response to all of their stakeholders, and to be honest and open. We trust and rely heavily on the competitive marketplace, but we don't believe in its omnipotence. Dishonesty and lack of transparency undermine the effectiveness of competition. We don't want competition to be based on who can lie the best.

When politicians allow their corporate contributors to get away with lying or stealing from the public, or gaining an unfair competitive advantage, it tells us that they do not truly believe in the free market, that they are unwilling to defend it. Democrats insist on systems of governance and oversight that can detect and punish corporate crime. To fail to do so discredits the value of responsibility.

Democrats support protection of the environment for its own sake, not merely for economic or public health reasons, as important as they are. We value all life on the planet, all of God's creation. Recognizing the importance of balance in all things, we support intelligent processes to minimize the conflict between economic and environmental values. However, once a species is extinct, no economic process can bring it back.

Our system of government relies on special interest groups to advocate for their constituents, to gather and process information to aid decision making. However, our politicians must not allow special interest arguments, money, or threats to distract them from their values, or forget about the parts of the population that are not represented by interest groups. This is a matter of strength. Voters look for this clear vision and commitment to values; it's part of the reason people voted for Bush in spite of their disagreement with many of his policies.

Democrats encourage innovation and experimentation in government policy, and measurement of the outcome. This is why many Democrats went along with 1980s efforts at privatization and deregulation. However, government policies do tend to take on a life of their own unless politicians are strong enough to kill the ones that don't work. Now that Reagan-era policies have had their 20 years of testing, it's time for triage, to purge what hasn't worked. The Republicans' monopoly on power for the last few years is the last best chance for many Reagan concepts. There are no more excuses, and soon the triage will have to begin.

Overall, the community's responsibility to itself is to build a better future, to increase society's capital through research, education, investment, and conservation; and to leave as few problems and as little debt as possible to future generations. By this measure we have never seen a less responsible government than we have right now.

Political themes: Belief in competition means defense of the level playing field. Responsibility of honesty and openness in business and government. Protection of the environment for its own sake. Strength to resist special interests and discard obsolete policies. Responsibility to our children and the future.

Community responsibility to the individual

2004-12-09T09:55:00.000-07:00

In exchange for the contributions we make to the community, there is a reciprocal responsibility of governments and businesses to us. There are no "self-made men" in the world: all of us rely heavily on services of the government, business, and charitable sectors. This interdependence is what makes an advanced economy.

We rely on government and business together to promote freedom and opportunity. Competitive markets give us freedom of choice, something we value highly. We expect both government and business to be responsive to the vast diversity of the nation, to be flexible. We see it as a failure of competition when our choices are limited to a bland but inexpensive sameness that limits our choices and reduces our freedom; or when businesses fail to meet their responsibilities to individuals or the community. Regulation is always a balancing process between economic rights and collective responsibilities.

Our superior economy is based on the possibility that anyone with a good idea can start a small business and put that idea to the test in a free, fair market. We expect government to maintain the levelness of the playing field, and we expect larger businesses to respect the entrepreneurial incubator. Democrats believe the community can do much more to help small businesses get off to a good start and restrain anti-competitive corporate behavior.

A key responsibility of government is to ensure equal protection under the law for everyone, with no exceptions. We believe all people are created equal, that all of us are endowed with certain fundamental rights, including life, liberty, and opportunity. One of the main reasons our government exists is to protect these rights and provide a basic safety net for everyone so they can freely pursue opportunity.

When government and business interact with the individual, we expect them to respect and value our time, work, and dignity. We take action as a community when this responsibility is not honored. The No-Call List is a prime example of this, a Democratic initiative with widespread public support. We believe in a corporation's responsibility to all its stakeholders, including shareholders, employees, customers, suppliers, and the general public.

We believe our hard work and time have value that goes beyond what a competitive market would pay for it. Regardless of our hourly wage, we donate our time freely to charitable causes, for example, and many of us choose occupations that pay less than what we might otherwise make. We believe anyone willing to work hard deserves some degree of recognition, including in government policies such as minimum wage and taxation.

Responsibility increases with power. As a government or private organization becomes larger, we expect more from it, more responsibility to both the individual and the community. Democrats have always been concerned about the asymmetrical relationship between large organizations and the individual. We support institutions that strengthen the hand of the individual, such as organized labor. We are still the party of "the little guy."

Political themes: Free and fair competition. Support of individual initiative. Corporate responsibility, regulated if necessary. Equal protection under the law. Responsibility increases with power. Support for the little guy.

Responsibility to the community

2004-12-08T09:50:00.000-07:00

Democrats understand that a functioning community is made up of people who recognize their common responsibility to each other. We tolerate each other's differences – "live and let live" – and treat each other with respect. We believe that the pursuit of opportunity and building of a better society is something we have to do together.

A distinctive aspect of the Democratic Party is that we are a highly diverse group, made up of all races, religions, and backgrounds. We work together in spite of the ideological differences among us. This is one reason talk radio hasn't caught on among Democrats, because we don't believe in showing disrespect to other viewpoints. Part of our responsibility to the community is to put aside our personal prejudices, and especially try not to pass them on to our children.

We respect the rule of law. The legitimacy of any law comes from a broad consensus on the necessity and substance of it, the consent of the governed. We are very reluctant to write into law provisions that have strong opposition from parts of the population, especially issues of subjective morality, because of a desire to avoid the tyranny of the majority.

Once a law is adopted, we believe it applies equally to both the powerful and the meek. When people or corporations use their power to evade the law, we believe a special effort should be made to bring them to justice. To fail to do so would undermine the value of personal responsibility to the community.

We accept the importance of individual contributions of time, money, skills, and ideas; community spirit. The morally vacuous concept of self-interest that has pervaded the nation in recent decades is contributing to a breakdown of civility, and of the community. We need to take the lead to reverse this.

A major role of government is to promote opportunity, by providing the economic infrastructure needed in order for businesses to thrive. Those who gain more from this infrastructure should pay more for its construction. This is the principle of fair, progressive taxation. The Federal income tax is progressive, while most other taxes currently are not, especially the Social Security tax.

A simpler, fairer tax system would especially benefit the new, innovative small businesses that we want to encourage. The charitable tax deduction is one of the main things the Federal government does to encourage voluntary giving, and we strongly support it.

All of us, but especially our leaders, have a duty to promote all of the values described in these essays, in every aspect of life. This is a personal commitment to the moral advancement of the community. Most issues of values and morality can't be written into law without unduly compromising freedom. But leaders do have the responsibility to use their "bully pulpit" to promote good citizenship.

Political themes: Live and let live. Respect for each other and for the law. Progressive taxation as fair payment for economic infrastructure. Responsibility to give back to the community.

Responsibility to oneself and family

2004-12-07T09:45:00.000-07:00

Freedom is a scary thing, capable of great good and great harm. A cornerstone of freedom is the notion that government is severely restrained from involvement in our daily lives, that it has very little control over our behavior. In the absence of government control, we substitute voluntary control, in the form of Responsibility. Freedom doesn't work without Responsibility.

One type of responsibility we have is to ourselves: self-nurturance, self-discipline, and self-actualization. We have a responsibility to educate ourselves, and to build up our personal capital in the form of savings, friendships, and accomplishments. These build our personal safety nets and make it possible for us to raise successful families, help others, and build a better society. We also have a responsibility to control our own behavior, to avoid harming ourselves or our families, or distracting ourselves from our goals.

Consistent with their emphasis on Freedom, liberals tend to place more emphasis on self-discipline than on discipline by others. Teaching of self-discipline is a central responsibility of the family. In liberal religious traditions, the confession of one's own sins and the sacrament of penance play a prominent role, with less emphasis on fire and brimstone later. We tend to favor early childhood intervention, before harmful behavior takes root, to reduce the need for punishment after the fact.

We see the lack of self-discipline as a source of moral deterioration in society. Too many people believe that no transgression occurred unless one is caught. Corporate accounting scandals and Clinton's dalliance are highly visible examples where this dysfunctional moral code has come to light. We see a creeping attitude that anything that isn't illegal, must not be immoral. Hollywood producers make excessively violent films, and politicians conduct midnight redistricting sessions, when they don't recognize their responsibility to restrict their own behavior. Politicians and other community leaders must become better role models.

This dysfunction is magnified when legislators try to encode moral issues into law. It sends the message that morality and legality are equivalent, that people can't be trusted with freedom. We see this attitude as anti-freedom. The essence of freedom is that we can't force people to be good, that they have to learn to find goodness within themselves.

We also see excessive government intervention in the family as anti-freedom. There is definitely a role for teaching of parenting skills, conflict resolution, anger management, and the like. But we don't want government to coerce any specific family arrangement. We rely on freedom and responsibility to motivate all families of any type.

The future of personal responsibility in America is not creating more wrongdoers to put in prison. An increasing prison population is a sign of cultural and government failure: the cultural failure is that we don't value personal responsibility enough; and the government failure is that we don't have the infrastructure of opportunity in place for all poor people, urban and rural. Our vision is of a society where children build a healthy conscience and work ethic, where these become a central part of their identity that lasts throughout life. Conscience and opportunity will reduce the number of people needing to be arrested by reducing the amount of crime in the first place.

A prominent writer on the connection between family and politics is George Lakoff, well known for his Nurturant Parent and Strict Father models of political thought. I disagree with parts of his model, feeling that liberals and conservatives are not as far apart in values as he posits. In particular, I'm making the case here that self-discipline is actually more important to liberal thought than to conservative thought. But his ideas on language and framing are still extremely useful.

Political themes: Freedom doesn't work without Responsibility. Personal responsibility to oneself and family includes self-discipline, self-nurturance, and self-actualization. Importance of conscience and work ethic. Prevention beats punishment. Politicians and other community leaders must become better role models.

Balance and inclusion

2004-12-06T11:37:00.000-07:00

Historically Democrats have had no special claim as the party of balance, since both parties have had influential moderate wings. This is in spite of the fact that a central aspect of liberalism is the willingness to see issues from all sides, to try to understand and address opposing points of view. Now that the other party has explicitly abandoned the pursuit of balance, in favor of an inflexible absolutism, many Democratic leaders have correctly perceived the need to re-assert the importance of balance in public policy. The challenge is to adopt balanced perspectives that are still true to our core values, in fact true to the core values of the vast majority of Americans.

A key point of assurance the public needs is that a balanced approach doesn’t mean an unpredictable outcome, that "anything goes." What it means is that we acknowledge the competing rights and responsibilities in a public policy debate, and we reach a fair outcome as consistent as possible with our values, vision and the competing perspectives. The result should be predictable. This is what will help the public feel confident that when they vote for our candidates, they will get what they expect. Consistent balance makes us less vulnerable to fear-mongering by the other side.

In these essays we have spotlighted many issues where competing rights need to be balanced. Gun control, for example, involves balancing the right to personal safety, against the right to bear arms. Everyone wants the freedom to go about one’s life without feeling helpless in regard to personal safety. But the practical implication in terms of gun ownership varies from one place to another.

Similarly, a balanced approach to equal rights in general means not singling out specific groups where we think equal rights are a special concern, but simply affirming our commitment to equal rights for everyone. Here the balance comes from the fact that no one is singled out or forgotten. Balance implies inclusiveness.

Spirituality is a place where balance is especially needed. In a way, a spiritual message is the ultimate form of populism. We talk directly with God, so no one can rank any higher. This is a powerful affirmation, a source of personal identity, and we need to take it seriously. If neither party has much to offer for the material needs of many people, it should be no wonder that the party that talks about spiritual needs is the one to capture the populist vote.

Democrats are puzzled by concerns about "gay marriage," "creationism," and other concepts that we wouldn’t expect to find in political debate. Our inappropriate reaction makes it appear that we are anti-religion, which is just the opposite of the truth. The solution is not to reject religion, nor is it to deny equal rights or the scientific method. The solution is to speak to both the material and spiritual needs of those who are feeling left out of the Democratic platform.

We need to reconnect with the material needs of the poor, both urban and rural; and we need to affirm the spiritual need for conscience and for personal responsibility to each other. The essays on Responsibility and Opportunity are an attempt to show how this can be done. Part of the duty of a politician is to make everyone feel included, validated, and uplifted. This means de-emphasizing interest group politics. An inclusive approach, true to our values, will neutralize the politics of division.

See the Sojourners web site for especially good resources and commentary that remind us of our liberal roots and how they relate to spirituality and our changing world.

Political themes: Good public policy recognizes and balances competing rights. Consistent balance builds public trust. Liberalism implies balance and inclusiveness. Evangelical politics is a potent form of populism, pointing to people and needs that we are failing to reach. Favor inclusiveness rather than interest group politics.

Nurturance and safety nets

2004-12-05T09:27:00.000-07:00

Democrats understand that we live in an interdependent society. Our freedom is enhanced when we have a diversified support network, a safety net, to control the risk we all face as we pursue opportunity. In return for this type of security, we have a responsibility to help others in need, and to refrain from abusing the privilege.

In our modern world the primary ingredients of the social safety net are education, savings, family, spirituality, friends, community, workplace, unions, and government. It’s a complex web, but the mastery of it is one thing we regard as a distinctive aspect of the American character. All of the components of the safety net are equally important. We should neither over-emphasize nor deprecate any of the components, but learn to develop all of them.

Public policy has a supporting role in several aspects of the safety net. Education is most important through much of life, because it gives us the flexibility to change careers and insulate ourselves from many changes in the economy. Education can also play a role in the acquisition of practical parenting skills, making the family a stronger source of nurturance.

The workplace is another important source of economic support, where public policy comes into play. Employers have a responsibility to provide a wage sufficient to allow each worker to build the savings and education aspects of their personal safety nets. The minimum wage ensures that this responsibility of the business sector isn’t eroded by competitive pressures.

As we age, certain components of the safety nets we’ve carefully built through life, start to disappear. This is why we have Social Security and Medicare. These systems represent a social contract between generations, where the most productive generations contribute to the security of those who built the society before. These programs are not a replacement for savings. They are assistance for those whose economic safety nets aren’t holding.

Health care is another aspect of the safety net. As a society we have already accepted the concept that everyone is entitled to health care, by accepting anyone in emergency rooms. However, this is the most expensive possible way of providing medical services, a huge expense for every level of government. Moreover, it is becoming increasingly difficult for employers to provide insurance in an age of job mobility and part-time work. The administrative burden is especially hard on small businesses. This is a place where special political courage is required, to overcome the huge entrenched interests in our currently dysfunctional health care system. We need to move to an employee-based health insurance system and ensure universal access to preventive care. Medical insurance is not a savings plan, it is a system for managing risk.

In contrast, there are aspects of the safety net where government involvement is unwelcome, even counter-productive. Spirituality is one. We don’t require that spiritual support come from institutional religion, because we know that people can develop their spirituality in many different ways, even from their own meditations. We want people to appreciate their connectedness to each other and the world around them, to develop a conscience, and are grateful for any way that this comes to pass. This connectedness is part of the foundation of social order.

In some ways, spirituality is an ultimate safety line, as long as it stays completely independent of government. Regardless of what happens to family, friends, and government policy, our spirituality and religious connections should still be there. The effectiveness of this safety line is compromised when religious organizations become dependent on government funding, or become tools of government policy. To tie spiritual authority to government power turns the spirit into a mere extension of the flesh, vulnerable to all the same weaknesses we see in government and the material world.

Political themes: Diversified safety net, reinforced by education and the minimum wage. Social security as old age safety net and inter-generational contract. Reform of the expensive, dysfunctional health insurance system. Religion must stay independent of government.

Respecting life

2004-12-04T10:47:00.000-07:00

Democrats respect and support life, not just with words but with action. Most Democrats oppose the death penalty and set a high standard – the centuries-old Christian philosophy of Just War – for military action. Most significantly, the only president who has succeeded in making significant reductions in abortion rates in the United States is Bill Clinton, who advocated making abortion safe, legal, and rare. Abortion rates have increased under George W. Bush. In fact, the abortion rate in Colorado has doubled since 2000.

The political debate over abortion is hugely unsatisfactory, because most Americans disagree with both of the positions advocated by the political parties: they don’t believe all abortions should be banned (the pro-life position), and they don’t believe abortion should always be legal (the pro-choice position). The banning of abortion isn’t even a practical possibility: most countries in Latin America ban all abortions, yet their abortion rates are still higher than in the United States.

Practically everyone – Republicans, Democrats, religious and non-religious – agrees that abortion reflects a moral tradeoff between two competing rights: a fetal right to life, and a woman’s right to autonomy, to control her own body. Most Americans accept the notion that the woman’s right takes precedence early in pregnancy, and the fetal right takes precedence later in pregnancy. Most accept that the woman’s right to life always takes precedence over the fetal right when the two come into conflict. Nationally, 88% of abortions occur in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy and only 1.5% occur after the 20th week.

Ascertaining the point where the fetal right takes precedence is a problem that legislatures and courts are ill-equipped to handle. Government isn’t the solution to every problem, as Reagan would say. Both parties have fallen victim to the slippery slope arguments of interest groups, and both have abandoned the vast middle ground occupied by most Americans.

As a result, we see pointless debates about wedge issues such as abortion counseling, that sometimes put other rights at risk. We believe in freedom of speech and personal autonomy. Therefore, medical professionals with personal objections to abortion should not have to participate in the procedure and should not be penalized because of it. Organizations that don't wish to provide abortion counseling shouldn't have to, just as no organization should be prohibited from such counseling that it wants to provide.

Democrats need to seize the moral high ground by embracing both the woman’s right to autonomy and the fetal right to life, working to ensure that the two come into conflict as rarely as possible by removing the problems that cause women to choose abortion. This is a place where public policy can help a lot, and it is a major reason why abortion rates declined during the Clinton administration. We support policies to lift single mothers out of poverty, provide opportunities for poor people, support quality public schools in the inner cities, provide daycare and transportation, encourage adoption, and ensure widespread availability of contraceptives.

We all see abortion as a problem, and what we do about it in law can vary among states and localities based on local cultural norms. Democrats should not be afraid to stand up for policies and laws that respect both the woman’s right to autonomy and the fetal right to life, reflecting different gestational stages and circumstances.

What we have to work for in our culture is a greater respect for life, and this means for all lives. Iraqi citizens are just as invisible to us as fetuses. If our leaders can't accord Iraqi lives the same level of respect as we give our own, how can they possibly have any credibility to speak on behalf of fetuses?

Political themes: Respect for all life. Respect for both women’s autonomy and fetal life. Government isn’t the solution to every problem.

Equal rights

2004-12-03T09:31:00.000-07:00

Equal rights have always been a hallmark of the Democratic Party, but somehow in recent years we’ve allowed this message to drift, making it too easy for cynical people to turn it into an appeal to bigotry. This is a huge failure and needs to be corrected at once, by renewing and simplifying the message.

Instead of equal rights without regard to gender, race, disability, nationality, creed, etc. and debating whether to add sexual orientation, let’s just say this: equal rights under the law for everyone, no exceptions.

Rather than focusing on sex, let’s focus on people and their needs, and let’s not forget that gender and racial equality still are not fully accomplished. The simpler message is better-focused and truer to our values.

The question whether sexual preference is a choice or genetic is interesting, but irrelevant. The fact is that same-sex couples do form lasting relationships that have all the practical characteristics and needs of a marriage, that make the same contributions to the community. There is no practical or philosophical reason under the Constitution to deny them full economic and legal rights. Religious rights are a separate question, that only religion can answer.

Equality doesn't refer to literal or biological equality. For example, we all know that gender and disability imply physical differences that may affect the direction of our lives. But still, there is a very important sense of equality, that the Bill of Rights applies to everyone, that everyone has the right to pursue advancement to their full potential, that equal work deserves equal pay, that all of us deserve equal dignity and respect for our dreams.

Equality also isn’t limited to the United States. If we want our values to be projected around the world, we have to demonstrate it through our actions. Each Iraqi life is worth just as much as each American life, for example. To believe or act otherwise is grossly immoral.

Equality means much more than assimilation of minority groups into white culture. It means valuing and learning from each other. Part of the reason Bill Clinton was called "the first black president" is that he was able to speak convincingly of what we can learn from the contributions of black people, and he could appreciate black culture. True integration happens when our shared culture is visibly improved by the contribution of minority people and groups, and when the majority (or plurality) group appreciate, admire, and value the contribution.

Political themes: Equal rights under the law for everyone, no exceptions. Appreciation of the contributions of minority cultures. Rejection of bigotry. To deny equal rights to anyone is anti-Freedom.

Protection from excessive power

2004-12-02T09:15:00.000-07:00

Since the time of Ronald Reagan, Republicans have talked about the dangers of an overly powerful government. For a brief time (in historical terms), this allowed the GOP to take away from the Democratic Party one of its most important themes: defense of the little guy. Now is a good time to take that issue back, and we need to take it back on our terms.

To some extent at the local level we are already doing this, for example with innovative community policing techniques that build more cooperative relationships between citizens and the government to reduce crime. Building a more innovative and responsive local government has been a big reason why Democrats are making gains in down-ticket races.

Government isn’t necessarily the problem, the problem is too much concentration of power. Today the government intrudes too much in the private lives of its citizens, and corporations wield too much economic power on our lives. We are strong believers in competition of ideas and businesses, but a right-wing Federal government and right-wing media are building a monopoly on ideas, and corporate acquisitions have built a system of oligopoly power that pushes smaller players out of business and reduces the quality and innovation of goods and services.

We all cheer the success of small independent businesses like The Tattered Cover because they are so exceptional at a time when small businesses are so endangered. As a matter of policy we need to be much more resistant to business consolidation, so smaller players have room to thrive.

Consumer protection, as a defense against corporate irresponsibility, is just as important as protection from an overbearing government, or protection from crime. Since the 1980s Federal regulation for purposes of consumer protection has been eroded, but the demand for consumer protection is still there. So we use litigation instead.

Unfortunately, litigation introduces substantial business risk that regulation does not, and litigation is also more expensive to the economy as a whole. The risk of litigation is a big factor in the willingness of would-be entrepreneurs to start new businesses, and the ability to afford capable legal staffs is one reason why large corporations have a competitive advantage over small businesses.

If we want to put small business to work rebuilding an innovative economy, we need to reduce this substantial barrier to entry. Tort reform is an issue that Republicans have used to wedge small business people away from us. We must not let that happen. Professionals and small business owners – the little guys – should be our strongest business-sector allies. We agree with the need to reduce the risk of litigation, but we know consumer protection will always be in demand, especially as long as large corporations remain too powerful. To seriously cut back on litigation, the judicious use of regulation will have to take its place.

For a great journal focused on the political needs of the smallest of businesses, see www.microenterprisejournal.com.

Political themes: It's time to support the little guy again. Too much power is bad in both government and business. Responsive government. Strong support of small business as the engine of economic growth. Appreciation of innovative, quality products and services from small businesses. Consumer protection, not litigation.

Civil rights

2004-11-30T10:45:00.000-07:00

One of the fundamentals of being a Democrat is to strongly defend the Bill of Rights. The first 10 amendments of the US Constitution can be summarized as:

1. Freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, petition.
2. Right to bear arms.
3. No requirement for quartering of soldiers.
4. Right of security against unreasonable search and seizure.
5. Right to due process of law.
6. Right to speedy trial.
7. Right to trial by jury.
8. Prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment.
9. Additional rights retained by the people.
10. Additional powers retained by the states or people.

You can find the entire US Constitution and related resources at www.usconstitution.net/const.html.

Amendments 9 and 10 recognize a constitutional and cultural principle that expansion of rights is to be expected and encouraged, that the purpose of the Constitution is not to restrict rights and liberties beyond the basic purposes described in the preamble. Through long tradition, and legislative and judicial precedent, we have recognized additional rights such as personal safety, privacy, and autonomy.

Some of the most severe damage politicians do to civil rights is done by use of the "slippery slope" argument, appealing to fear. For example, the fallacy that if any kind of gun is restricted, soon all guns will be banned; or the fallacy that if any alliance with the religious sector is permitted, soon we'll have a state religion. Resorting to slippery slope arguments is often an expression of lack of trust in our institutions to maintain balance, or a sign of lack of confidence in one's own ability to push back. Democrats generally accept the notion that, if our institutions aren't perfect in maintaining civil rights and balance, that they can be improved to do it better. If we feel too politically weak to push back against encroachments on Freedom, it should motivate us to build more political power by broadening our base of support.

Being the pro-Freedom party means understanding the Bill of Rights, and showing in all our policies and messages that civil rights are paramount. We need to be extremely reluctant to limit personal freedom, and need a strong justification to do so (usually a conflict with other civil rights). We must not use the Federal government to accomplish aims that are better left to state or local governments, or to the people. We must not let anyone imply through message or policy that the government can be a replacement for personal responsibility or for the family.

Some of the most contentious issues at the Federal level today are divisive precisely because they are being debated at the wrong level of government. For example, Democrats are starting to realize that gun control may best be debated at the local level, recognizing the differences between urban and rural needs.

Here are our political themes: We strongly support civil rights. We are not afraid of freedom. Government is not a replacement for personal responsibility. We don't want the government meddling in our families. Government must respect the cultural differences across our vast nation. Policies contrary to these principles are anti-Freedom.

Democratic Values

2004-11-28T16:59:00.000-07:00

Here's a way of thinking about Democratic values that provides some vocabulary and concepts. In future posts I'll elaborate on each topic in these tables.

Freedom, responsibility, and opportunity for all

The Democratic Party believes in the essential goodness and spirituality of mankind, that the role of government should be to protect and enhance the potential of every individual to contribute to, and benefit from, the bounty of democracy. We believe in preserving and expanding individual freedom for everyone without exception, that widespread freedom requires responsibility and balance, and that striving for a better future is both a right and a responsibility for every citizen individually as well as for the community as a whole.

Freedom
Civil rights:	Civil liberties, the Bill of Rights, safety, privacy, autonomy
Protection:	From unfair, excessive, negligent, or criminal use of power by any person, organization, government, or corporation
Equality:	Of rights under the law for everyone, no exceptions
Life:	Respect for life, taken seriously
Nurturance:	Safety net of family, community, and spirituality
Balance:	Balance and fairness when rights compete Inclusiveness beats the politics of division

Responsibility

Personal responsibility to oneself and family
Self-nurturance, self-discipline, self-actualization

Personal responsibility to the community
Respect for the law and for each other, tolerance
Contribution of time, money, skills, and ideas; community spirit
Greater responsibility from those who receive more from the community
Promotion of these values in every aspect of life

Community responsibility to the individual
Promote freedom and opportunity
Equal protection under the law
Respect and value the individual’s time, work, and dignity

Community responsibility to itself
Efficiency and effectiveness of government
Honesty and openness of institutions and officials, government and business
Respect for fair and meaningful competition
Stewardship of the earth and natural resources
Strength to resist the extremes of special interests and competing powers
A better future, fiscal responsibility, basic research, education, investment

Community responsibility to the world
Moral leadership: Promote democratic values, respect for other peoples
Strength: Statesmanship, intelligence, resourcefulness, restraint

Opportunity
Creativity:	America’s role as the world’s creative engine, we invent things the world wants to buy
Improvement:	Continuous learning and improvement, scientific method
Entrepreneurship:	Reward for individual risk-taking
Diversity:	Diversity and inclusion as a source of community and business creativity
Competition:	Free and fair competition, equal opportunity
Fulfillment:	Freedom and responsibility to reach one’s full potential in work
Infrastructure:	Nurturance of economic expansion

Keep repeating the words Freedom, Responsibility, and Opportunity whenever talking about Democratic policy ideas. When Republican policies are contrary to these, they are anti-Freedom, anti-Responsibility, or anti-Opportunity.

Series Introduction

2004-11-28T16:10:00.000-07:00

This blog is a set of essays on values, vision, and issues that could be used in creating a Democratic message for western suburbia. It started with several brainstorming sessions among dozens of Democrats in south suburban Denver, and I've extended it with my own ideas.

Comments from anyone are welcome. There is no universal Democratic Party ideology, and never will be. Diversity is one of the important things we value, so another part of our value system has to be the means by which we reconcile diverging perspectives in order to make progress.

Values are important to voters, because in a changing world and the give-and-take of legislative process, the public needs to know how politicians will respond to unexpected events and processes of negotiation. A simplified message isn’t necessarily simple-minded. We generally don’t trust politicians to keep specific promises, so we don’t listen much to their specific policy ideas. However, if a politician clearly describes a vision and direction, we tend to have more confidence that he or she will at least work in that direction.

The orientation here is long-term, thinking about what it will take for the Democratic Party to become representative of a broad cross-section of America. I want to express a consistent vision and set of values shared by a much larger majority of Americans, and think of ways to use the political process to turn the vision into reality by means of the Democratic Party.

I am going to slay a few sacred cows in these essays, because I think the Democratic Party needs to discard some obsolete orthodoxy in order to stay true to its core values in a changing world. Interest groups that are essential to the party infrastructure promote a pure, unhedged perspective because that is their job, and they do it well. What I object to is the weakness of politicians in their unwillingness or inability to challenge extreme views and find a principled balance, which is what most ordinary Americans do in their own minds. Maybe these essays will help with that.

Democrats didn’t want a culture war, and voters sometimes interpret that as a lack of concern about a number of major problems in our culture. We are very concerned, but we haven’t been very effective at doing anything about it. The Republican culture war hasn’t been effective either, as history will show. It’s essential that we find a better way, and it starts with having a better definition of the problem and a better vision for the future.

George Bush won in 2004 by communicating a vision, and we lost by not communicating ours. Democrats can do better, and the aim here is to show how.