Proposal for the DNC bumpersticker: Opportunity For Everyone (draft, feedback requested)

[yesthattom]

[ Note: A "bumpersticker" slogan refers to an organization's extremely brief description of what they stand for. It should be just a few words long, and structured so that if anyone is against it they look bad. For example, the Republicans have gotten a lot of mileage out of the bumpersticker “Less taxes / keep more of your paycheck”. Howard Dean, the new chair of the DNC, has stated that Democrats need to have one. ]

Proposal for the DNC bumpersticker: Opportunity For Everyone

To me, this expresses everything that’s good about being a Democrat. We believe there is nothing more important than helping people get a better lot in life. We know that fundamentally people will work to improve their lives and the only thing that holds them back is the roadblocks that are put in their way.

We don’t believe in a handout, but a hand-up. We’re in favor of anti-discrimination laws because they remove roadblocks to opportunity. We hate to see people go hungry, homeless, or without medical attention because that takes them out of the opportunity path. We want poison-free neighborhoods because without health, they have no opportunity. And of course, we want all Americans to get a quality education, because it is the single most important key to assuring opportunity.

To quote Billy Joel, I believe in a country where every child has a pretty good shot to get at least as far as their old man got.

I’m waiting for a Democratic candidate to stand up and make the following point in one of their speeches:

“Would you like to predict how I’m going to vote on an issue once I’m elected? It’s pretty simple. I believe in Opportunity for Everyone. It’s that simple. If the bill creates opportunity for people, then I’m for it. If it clears the roadblocks that prevent people from moving up their lot in life, I’m for it. But if it restricts people’s ability to do so, you can count on a “no” vote from me.”

There are second-tier issues that come to mind when talking about “opportunity for everyone”. For example, why does the government build highways? Because commerce depends on it and without commerce there is little opportunity.

Etc.

Etc.

I need to work on this more, but I think this is the right direction for finding our bumpersticker. In fact, I think we can even tie this into why having an ethical government is important.

Thoughts? Opinions?

Comments

[mangosteen]

The canonical retort is that if you Want It Bad Enough, you don't have to put the market-distorting measures in place that the Dems want.

This then becomes a post-hoc-ergo-propter-hoc problem of showing that people obviously Didn't Want It Bad Enough because of their current situation.

Struggling immigrant? Didn't Want It Bad Enough to learn English on their own.
Homeless person? Didn't Want It Bad Enough to have a job.
Family trapped in a cycle of poverty? Didn't Want It Bad Enough to make enough money to get out.

...and I dare you to nail down a Republican on an actual definition for "Didn't Want It Bad Enough".

[yesthattom.livejournal.com]

Easy! (and good example)

Providing English as a second language is an excellent example of something inexpensive that the government can do to take away those roadblocks. They key, of course, is that people need to sign up, pay for the class, work hard and do well in the class. The days of people thinking that the government was some kind of magic genie are over. The government can set up classes (and there is a great demand for them!) but it's people taking the personal responsibility to sign up, show up, do the homework, and get the most out of the classes is something no government program can produce. However, I have the confidence that given the opportunity people will make their own opportunity.

Republicans always talk about personal responsibility but don't do anything to encourage it. They claim the free market solves all problems, but aren't willing to remove roadblocks to the market... unless it's Enron making millions by stealing from shareholders. Opportunity For Everyone is about standing up for the little guy that wants to work hard.

And then I end with something like, "Why do you hate people trying to make a better life for themselves?"

:-)

[king-tirian.livejournal.com]

It seems to me that the Democratic positions on the Iraqi liberation, SSI privitization, and environmental stewardship all come down on the wrong side of Opportunity. Unless you can make the argument with a straight face that putting emission controls on SUVs is about giving an inner-city kid the Opportunity to not have asthma and not about the Opportunity of a yuppie to not pay a surcharge for her vehicle.

Meh, I understand that I'm going to be seen as an enemy of Democratic success, but I agree with the assessment that any philosophy that can fit in a nutshell belongs in one. What the party needs is what Bill Clinton had in 1992: a catchy theme song.

[andrewfeland.livejournal.com]

Putting emission controls on SUVs isn't about keeping yuppies from paying surcharges. It's about lowering emissions. The current administration (I hesitate to call them Republicans, since Bush & co. seem to stand for big, invasive government and ridiculous controls on trade) would turn the atmosphere into pure CO2 before allowing their precious automotive lobby to spend any more than they absolutely have to on emissions controls.

And yeah, I'd say environmental protection is about giving poor people more opportunity, if you take a long-term view. Companies like Monsanto tend not to build toxin-spewing chemical factories in the backyards of the wealthy, and rich people don't tend to get born with birth defects because their mommas spent too much time drinking dioxin-laced water. Sure, in the short term, mom and dad get jobs. In the long term, mom and dad get cancer, and the kids aren't in any shape to join the workforce. Republican views of environmental stewardship are short-sighted at best, suicidal at worst.

SSI privatization is all about providing Social Security only to those who are intelligent enough and knowledgeable enough about personal finance to manage their own retirement. That takes financial security away from the vast majority of this country's population, and will ultimately prove more detrimental than beneficial, as the nation ends up trying to find some other way to take care of people who blew their social security funds on shady investment deals. That, and large investment firms will do whatever they can to milk the social security fund for whatever its worth, at the expense of the poorest beneficiaries (I used to work at State Street, I can tell you some stories about privatized state retirement funds that would turn your stomach).

You want to privatize Social Security? Turn it over to the guys that manage Harvard's endowment. They've managed to grow that fund no matter what the economic conditions were. That way we all see a better return on our investment, not just the select few who a) know how, and b) get lucky.

And Iraqi liberation? I'm sure the Iraqis think it's a splendid idea, and are really looking forward to the day that we come over there with some kind of plan for giving it to them.

[king-tirian.livejournal.com]

I'm not arguing about the rightness of these issues. I'm suggesting that if Senator Newwave stands up and says "I'm for things that promote opportunity and against things that suppress opportunity," then the follow-up question will be "Do you believe in giving workers the opportunity to invest their payroll taxes for themselves, or are you a stinking flip-flopper?" Our position is correct and moral, but it's because we believe in freedom FROM want and not freedom OF economic risk. That doesn't fit on a bumper sticker.

Nor does it need to. Remember that Newt Gingrich won his day with ten ideals, and the Preamble of the Constitution lists six. It doesn't seem defeatist to allow ourselves more latitude. Add "undeniable human dignity", "equality under the law", and "having a government that doesn't have to hide its actions from you" to "expand opportunity" and you've got a great foundation for a populist agenda that has more platform than gaps and that on the surface no one can disagree without sounding kookish.

I think that Tom is on the right track with the notion that our platform should be able to be printed on a card that can fit in your wallet and be generally predictive of how we would stand on a general issue that will come up in the future. But I'm not sure that anyone has won election in the US with a comprehensive policy that would fit on a bumper sticker, and I don't think I'd like to be led by the sorts of people who have historically won on such simplistic agendas.

[yesthattom.livejournal.com]

Yeah, but that's the libertarian perspective. I was talking about reality.

[yesthattom.livejournal.com]

I'm open to anything that people have to say. However, I do tend to ignore Libertarian theories about how the world works.

[yesthattom.livejournal.com]

On a more positive note, it's just as good as most bumper stickers. It's short and get's a point across. It's basis on reality isn't all that important. Look where te Republicans have gotten to by ignoring reality in the shaping of political opinion.

I posted my earlier rude reply before I saw this. Thank you for the compliment. While I disagree with "ignoring reality" part, this is about shaping public opinion.

[mangosteen]

I believe in a country where anyone can do better than their parents, if that is what they wish. It just doesn't get handed out on a silver platter, most of the time.

How is that any different from the post-hoc "Didn't want it bad enough" argument? To wit, see my comment near the beginning of this posting.

[mangosteen]

Your argument (or rather the one you're presenting) "Didn't want it bad enough" implies that they are currently able to get there, regardless. I don't think the R's believe we're there.

I'm having problems parsing that, but I'll respond to what I think you're saying.

There are two sides to this. "Equality of Opportunity" and "Equality of Outcome".

The Republicans think that the former has been satisfied, and that the Democrats are whining about a lack of the latter.

The Democrats believe that the latter is as unrealistic at the Republicans do, but believe that the former is unsatisfied, and need to work harder at it.

It is the assumptions the Republicans make about "equality of opportunity" that create the "Didn't want it bad enough" argument.

A better slogan

[mrfantasy.livejournal.com]

"Candy and sodas for everyone!"

--Homer Simpson

[barking-iguana.livejournal.com]

I like it, because it justly muddies the Republican claim on "opportunity". It gets at the heart of the Libertarian Right's hogwash. I think some people who think they way I believe you often do might criticize it for being reactive -- for worrying about a supposedly Republican word. But I think the battle over "opportunity" is one we can and must win.

[stakebait.livejournal.com]

I agree we need one, and I'm certainly behind the concepts you describe, but I have to admit, as a summing up phrase, it doesn't really grab me by the throat. Too close to "equal opportunity", which is a bumper sticker already, maybe?

Wish I had something better to suggest. The "hand up not hand out" is always a classic, but it doesn't quite capture the "and then you help yourself and then help us help the next guy" part.

Plus I don't just want opportunity. I also want safety nets. Opportunity's important, but I think tying everything back to that is ceding too much ground tacitly to the Republicans in terms of an ownership society, where all anyone is owed is a chance, especially now with the Social Security debate in progress.

[andrewfeland.livejournal.com]

I like it. It's short, simple, and to the point, three characteristics that were sorely lacking in the 2004 campaign.

I'd also like to see one stating "Count Every Vote". How bad would you look if you stand against that?