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

[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.