How to Talk Like a Democrat, Part One

First off, many thanks to Mighty Anglachel for the generous linkage.  Some of her readers are already finding their way here and I'll do my best to make the journey worth their while.

Second, and by way of a down payment, the following is for lori who, in comments, mentioned being astonished by Lambert's posting on Corrente of one of FDR's fireside chats.  Since Jean Edward Smith has already called our attention to FDR's magisterial Madison Square Garden speech, I thought it might be interesting to start by taking a closer look at that particular address, as an example of the sort of Demoratic messaging that has mostly 'gone out of style' in recent years. 

The address was given in October of 1936.  The immediate context, of course, was FDR's reelection campaign of that year.  Much more, however, was at stake in that election.  It was nothing less than a chance for the people to vote on the question of whether the New Deal had been good or bad for the country, and thus whether or not it should continue.

One of the worries you hear a lot of these days is that liberals and progressives have lots of good policy ideas but they lack an overall narrative framework to draw those ideas together, prioritize them and give them force.  Here's how FDR did that right at the opening of this address:

In 1932 the issue was the restoration of American democracy; and the American people were in a mood to win. They did win. In 1936 the issue is the preservation of their victory.

How's that for a narrative framework?  What is at stake in the passage, and in the continuation of the New Deal, is nothing less than democracy itself.  Can you imagine a leading Democrat making such a claim today?  It's awfully hard to picture it.  But you can probably imagine without too much difficulty the shrieks and howls of protest from mainstream media elites if any leading Democrat were to try and make such a claim.  Their tribe would immediately pounce on said Democrat and denounce the claim as pure demogogy.

And in a sense that would be correct.  The word "demogogue" comes from ancient Greek and has two meanings.  One is the familiar, entirely perjorative one:  a leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power.  That is how any leading Democrat who made a claim like the one FDR is making here would instantly be treated by the mainstream press today. 

But there is also another meaning, closer to the plain sense of the word in Greek: a leader championing the cause of the common people.  And here we come up against something FDR knew and that we, by and large, have forgotten: you cannot do the latter (champion the cause of the common people), without being called the former, not because the two things are the same, but because it is in the interests of the rich and powerful to make it seem as if they must be the same.

One of the reasons we lack overarching narratives is because we have internalized a sense of shame about using the ones that come most naturally to us--that reflect how we  really feel about what is at stake in liberal and progressive goals.  Because here is the thing:  The same tribe that would pounce on any leading Democrat today, who claimed that what was at stake in Democratic policy goals was democracy itself, also pounced on FDR, for the same reasons, and called him a demogogue, and a good deal worse besides.  Here's the difference: FDR was not ashamed to be called that.

Goodness, I'm all out of time for today, and I only got one line into the speech!  Apparently, it's going to take a series of posts to glean everthing this particular speech has to tell us about how to talk like a Democrat!  But at least we covered the question of overarching Democratic narratives, and why they've become so scarce.

Next up:  How to talk about your opponents.