[ad_1]
Policies and positions resonate with wonks and people really attached to specific positions. The joking phrase you often hear in politics is, “You could have a beer with them.” Why is that true? Why do voters value the ability to connect with someone, especially on the Democratic side? “Democratic voters fall in love while Republican voters fall in line” is another common phrase among consultants. In truth, though, voters from both parties look for some of the same things, even if their end goal may be different. The Democratic Party has a real opportunity to expand on these items by remembering the ABCs of policy.
Acceptance
Asking the Democratic Party to accept rioters, traitors, and others should not be something we ever consider. The party, however, has room to accept those who are looking for a home and to be heard. Young people who care about the environment. Rural Democratic voters who want a seat at the table. Listening to voices within all of the diverse ethnic communities that make up the American coalition, because that Rainbow Coalition that Jesse Jackson talked about? It’s that acceptance that helps make people feel as though the Democratic Party is a place they can call home.
We are not a perfect party. We are not a perfect people. As it was in 1984, it is today. The party that comes forward with an acceptance of America is the party that can inspire. A party that lives in division and disrespect leaves so many alienated that it has only one path: to shrink. It shrinks as it puts more and more people on the outside. That is the Republican Party right now. It’s a party that doesn’t accept, a party that sets limits on who can be accepted. Acceptance and growth—that is always our path forward.
Belonging & Buy In
So often in our party and in our daily life, we discuss diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). For DEI to be truly successful, there have to be two Bs: Belonging and Buy-In. People must feel as though they belong to the group that you’re creating. They have to feel as though the acceptance is real, genuine, and that it provides them safety for who they are—that the acceptance provides them more than a “Well, we accept you;”—it’s a “You are welcomed.” This is the difference between just accepting a person or a position and welcoming it.
The second is buy-in. Candidates and party officials work to show, as a party, buy-in to the policies that are promoted by the administration. This also must go the other way: that the administration buys in to the issues that matter to the diverse base they now reflect. This mutual buy-in is required because without it, there is no level of training, no words or speeches that can be said, nor any token actions provided that bring up the excitement needed among voters to say, “Not only am I accepted, but I feel respected.” This is what buy-in is about.
Compassion
It is eerie to hear how often Republican candidates and their party seem to refer to compassion as though it’s a sin, and that those who offer it are enablers. In truth, history has shown that it’s just who you decide to offer compassion to that matters. Republicans have for a very long time offered a great deal of compassion to heavily invested donors and corporate interests, as well as their own base. Democratic elected officials should not shy away from similar compassion. While everyone is eager to talk about a $2,000 stimulus, the party should be clear: This is not the end, it’s a start, and if more is needed, it’s possible. There is nothing to rule out another stimulus in April for the people, or further relief from student loan debt.
People deserve compassion. Republican messaging provides almost no compassion while framing their discussion around caring for the future. You will frequently hear Republicans talk about saddling future generations with debt—debt they themselves have created through outlandish tax breaks for their friends. At no point, though, do we ever truly rob the future through debt. We invest in the present in hope of a better future. Imagine yourself buying a home. You find the home you want and get a 30-year mortgage. You have now gone into debt. Did you do it to rob from the children you do not yet have, or did you generate debt to provide a house for those children?
When the U.S. government takes out debt for a stimulus, are they concerned about future debt a child might face 40 years from now, or are they concerned that a short-term investment now in the ability to have good nutrition, housing, and education will benefit them later so that they’re in a better place and generate less social debt?
This is why the Republican argument fails: They lack the compassion to look at the immediate results under the assumption everyone is okay and that debt pushed to later is terrifying. They come up with this conclusion at the same time that Americans turn to payday and high interest loans just to feed and shelter themselves.
The Democratic Party has to recognize arguments about future debt are, except for a small number, not arguments that influence a single person. Meanwhile, saving someone from ruin and protecting their children now matters.
The 2020 election is over. The path to the 2021 and 2022 elections flows through this simple path: A-B-C.
[ad_2]
Source link
