Spin City

One of most interesting things I've read recently is a missive by conservative iconoclast Paul Weyrich on why he supports public transit.

It's an odd thing to see at first. Public transit is supposed to be the darling of kill-your-car hairy legged tree huggers. Car travel represent the American Dream, the thrill of independence and individuality, rock-solid conservatives values. So what's a conservative doing supporting public transit?

Morals, is the answer. Back in the Goode Olde Dayes, Weyrich says, people behaved themselves because they worried about what others might think. Pre-marital sex and pregnancy? For shame! Going to the prom with someone of the same sex? What will the neighbors think? Lyin', stealin', cheatin' at cards, one just couldn't live it down. Our obsession with car travel has moved us away from all that, he says. We jump in cars in garages attached to our homes and drive off without ever seeing or talking to a neighbor. As a result, the social brakes on what he considers to be immoral behavior is lost.

Progressives talk a lot about lost community. You find a lot in urban areas because they like walking on the street on sunny days and warm evenings, and sidewalk cafes. Our community design and subsidization of car travel takes us away from that. Weyrich agrees.

Democrats' biggest frustration is that polls show that most Americans agree with them on many issues. So why doesn't that translate into more success at the polls? Because the GOP is simply better at "framing" the issues.

Dems and liberals are generally wonks, people who think and speak in terms of fourteen point position papers, not broad strokes and definitions. "I believe in God, family and country!!" (implying the opposition doesn't), says the GOP apparatchik. Dem candidates and electeds sputter that they like those too, and that they, well, just sorta believe that, you know, schools are good too. No matter what plan comes after, the argument's already been lost. They get in first and define the question, and Dems have been terrible at either redefining or getting there first themselves.

But the times may be changing. I think we're seeing some of it at work with the Roberts nomination.

Roberts is a good nominee. I'd naturally prefer someone with a nice liberal bent but so far I haven't heard anything which justifies keeping him off the court. He's said the right things about the right to privacy, while still holding enough conservative credentials to keep the nutcases happy, enough. I think this is due to the "nuclear option" accord some months ago. It forced the Bush administration to find and nominate a relatively reasonable candidate. And that came about because Senate Dems, normally the most moderate of the party's electeds, wisely framed the issue.

According to an interesting article, the Dems found that accusing the GOP of trying to push a rightwing agenda didn't fare well as an argument against Frist's threat to end the filibuster. People expect legislators to work for their political ends, big deal.

What they didn't like was changing long-standing and time-honored constitutional rules. It framed the GOP as the crazy radicals and the Dems as the defenders of truth, justice and the American Way. The GOP settled for a draw, and the Roberts nomination resulted.

The aftermath of Hurricane Katrina offers Democrats another chance to reshape a clearly flawed policy, if the problem is correctly defined. Stay tuned.