One answer to a question posed to you by other TPMCafe denizens is that you're not saying that cultural hot-button issues aren't important (at least I don't interpret that to be what you're saying).  

The problem is that many GOP voters are simply uninformed on economic issues and think that it's a wash between the two parties, when clearly the Dems' economic policies are far better for them.  The Dems are viewed with an unearned untrustworthiness due to these cultural issues.  Their perceived closeness to rich Hollywood liberals is equated to the GOP's actual closeness to CEOs and corporate interests, particularly those that do business with or benefit from decisions made in D.C. (which at some level is pretty much all of them).  However the Dems aren't acting as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Hollywood, unlike the GOP and corporate America.

"I think that if Democrats rediscover their populist, liberal, blue-collar roots, it would be a tonic for them in about ten different ways, and it would be extremely troublesome for Republicans, also in numerous ways."

This is fundamentally correct.

I have a huge amount of sympathy for the DLC. I think they are generally excellent at crafting good politics that is good policy.

And so their odd blind spot of the good policy and good politics of lunchbox liberalism completely confounds me.

It's just so obvious.

------

"I agree with Greg that the Social Security issue is a perfect rallying point for Democrats to rediscover who they are and what they stand for--and also to rediscover the power of economic liberalism"

Very true.

And the bankruptcy bill was a missed opportunity.

And the estate tax is an ongoing opportunity.

Valuing work over wealth should be the unifying thread for Democrats. It brings us together. It drives our opposition apart. It's an expression of our core values. And it leads toward a governing majority.

I originally posted this to yesterday's discussion but I'm reposting it here since most readers are not looking at yesterday's posts. Apologies if you read it twice.

After reading all these comments, I noticed that no one wants to acknowledge the "elephants" taking up so much of our political space: racism and religion. There were a few brief hints about these issues, but to me they are front and center.

Working class whites no longer see the government as protecting their wages and jobs- they believe the government now only does that for non-whites. So they won't support unions or government job efforts because they believe that these things will only benefit "the others". They fully understand that they have benefitted from past discrimination and will have to sacrifice their positions of privilege as part of the remedy. And they don't want to.

And the bigger elephant is Fundamentalist Religion with anti-abortion, gays, and evolution as the big guns. Fundies are terrified because they realize that to acknowledge the rights of gays and women's reproductive rights, or to accept evolution as true means that the things they always believed in are FALSE. These beliefs are the very foundation of their existence and they will do anything to sustain those beliefs. When they hear politicians who support those issues, they vote for them with a clear understanding that the office holder will use the power of government to promote their religious beliefs and make them feel that their beliefs are TRUE.

In short, they are not interested in sharing or sacrificing anything for other people they don't consider deserving, but will sacrifice anything to please God. If they could be convinced that God would be pleased by less poverty, more equality, civil rights, and shared sacrifice, they would vote that way.

But who are they going to believe, a politician or their pastor?(unless they agree) Just like we want to see moderate Muslim leaders renounce violence, we need Christian leaders who will expose the right for the frauds they are. They have to communicate their perception of what is TRUE for believers and explain why progressive positions are not in conflict with their religion. I see progressive religious writers being just as timid as Democrats in confronting the right. It's more of the "I share your goals, just not your methods."

We need religious leaders who will teach their flock about the values of a successful society and why it's consistant with their beliefs to work toward it.

"Some dems incorrectly deduced that to gain at the polls we need to be more like the GOP in terms of our policies."

If your policies are broadly unpopular, then you try to move toward the center. Both parties do this. Why do you think George Bush delivered Medicare prescription drugs and increased aid to schools?

"I know the DLC honestly feel their positions are good for America but the DLC positions have moved us away from the people."

On the issue of economic populism, I agree with you.

But for the most part, DLC policies have moved us closer to the people. The DLC took intellectual control of a 42% party and transformed it into a 48% party.

And most of what they propose today is a solid plan toward building a majority party. But they certainly have an odd blind spot for economic populism, and it would behoove them to rethink the subtleties of that portion of their worldview.

I just used this book club as an excuse to move Mr. Franks' book to the top of my reading pile. Thank you for writing such a well-written and thought-provoking book. 
I think one way that the Backlash narrative seems so daunting is that it anticipates its own critics, and so insulates its true believers from change, much like doctrinaire Marxists or Freudians. The narrative presents some real challenges for those of us who seek to reverse its effects on America. 
I am reminded of the recent pate of "democrats have no ideas"/"what do you mean? Dems have plenty of ideas" teapot tempests recently and thinking about how they relate to the Backlash. The weakness of the Dems isn't a lack of ideas, but the lack of an Idea--that one totalizing narrative that distinguishes a movement from a mere coalition. Without that Idea, then Dems will have a hard time looking like they stand for something with the authentic zeal that the backlash adherents see in their own leaders (whether real or not is a separate question). Other writers have shown the nitty gritty workings of the current GOP coalition, that allows some business interests to defer their own demands in favor of others, knowing that their turn will come; the Dems have no big Idea that can give people a sense of place. 
I think Frank points in the right direction--a re-connection with working class issues in a more economic frame--but how to get there from here will require more door-to-door, neighbor-to-neighbor politicicking than we are used to. I think also of more daunting personal barriers--as a professor at a small college, there are bound to be people who simply see me as one more oppressive professional when I try to pursue my own politics, thereby feeding the very monster I am trying to oppose. 
Any help in figuring out these things will be appreciated, but I'm afraid that we are in for a long slog indeed. 

And most of what they propose today is a solid plan toward building a majority party. But they certainly have an odd blind spot for economic populism, and it would behoove them to rethink the subtleties of that portion of their worldview.

I think the term "rethink" isn't strong enough petey.  If left up to me I say scrap it and start over.  DLC permissive economic positions favoring the corporations have damaged our efforts and support in the organized labor and environmental movements.  And if weren't for the move to the right, away from our core constituents, would all those people voted for Nader and the Green Party in 2000?  I am one who won't criticize Ralph Nader, he has consistently run for president for a long time under the progressive banner.  But more and more the base is looking for alternatives to the GOP-lite candidates.  I look at it this way...we had control of Congress up until 1992, people liked our policies and didn't vote us out because of our policies.  That is when the DLC started to assert itself.  I am not blaming the DLC for us losing Congress but they surely haven't made any strides in us retaking Congress.

And I vehemently disagree that the reason we lost power because our policies are "broadly unpopular".  We were victims of a masterful repug PR campaign smearing us about the House Post Office and Bank scandals.  We are about to make strides in the House and Senate not because the people like the "new and improved" democratic positions but because they don't like blatant corrpution in their elected GOP officials...the same thing that got us in '92. 

Race may be America's most horrifying and most intractable problem.  We would be fools to ignore it.

I don't think so and I think the American people agree with me...

Do they agree with you at election time? It appears not. 

Dems have lost 7 of that last 10 presidential elections, and the ones they won featured Southern Baptist candidates.

The Keep-Schiavo-on-the-tube people screwed up and went too far, Dems and Reeps alike. That's going to happen, and it it's too extreme there will be temporary backlash like the one that re-elected Clinton.

But when it comes to school dress codes, teen sex parties, and keeping trashy stuff off of basic cable, the people are pretty clear about their desires, so don't confuse the occasional over-reach with being wrong on the basic premise. We'd all like to have monster houses and swimming pools, but not at the expense of our daughters' virtue.

Yes, there is a huge and growing class divide in America.  However, it is mostly self-imposed.

The global economy is presenting a choice to everyone in the western world: follow a certain path to success or suffer poor economic opportunities, shorter life expectancy, etc.  The successful path involves having an education, accepting the world as it is and adapting quickly to its changing circumstances.  Callused hands are not a guarantee of a middle class lifestyle anymore.

No government can alter that choice and still succeed in the world economy.  The competition is too tight and the cost of losing out are too high.

By and large, working class people are tuning that message out and dropping out.  Most are willing to work hard, and do, but not willing to do the type of work needed to lift their living standard and economic opportunities for their kids.  They go to college and drop out, or never go at all even though they know they should. They don't move where the jobs are, but wait for the jobs to return to them.  In how many towns has it been said to these workers "the factory is not coming back"?

The NY Times ran an excellent series on social mobility and laid this issue out quite nicely about a month ago.  These decisions are wrapped up in tradition, culture, family expectations.

So it's mostly sadness that the college educated feel for their working class brethren (including blood relatives!) who bury their heads in the sand and refuse to do better.  If the will existed in the U.S. to follow the route of Ireland, we could change these mindsets.  Putting the pieces in place to make this happen has to be the focus of economic policy for progressives.

There's no need to shout, I understand what you're trying to say; it's the same thing Frank says, that the little people are too hung up on the wrong issues, misguided little weak things that they are. You're arguing a position that's at best philosophical, but I'm talking about politics back at you, not philosophy.

So even if you're right, you're not going to win elections until you can think like a voter; not like a voter SHOULD, but like a voter DOES.

<BLOCKQUOTE>In both cases, progressives should be pushing for any non-regressive religious leader or good ole boys to stand up and condemn the regressives who are using race and religion as machetes on American society.  A little shame will go a long way.</BLOCKQUOTE>

 It's a shame that progressives must seek outside themselves to find a religious leader.  There exist a great many people such as myself who feel that their religion is as fundamental to their being as their race.  We need a progressive vision that can be cast in continuity with the grand American religious tradition rather than one that diverges.

 I seek unity between faith and progressivism, not faith as a weapon to slash back with against the false prophets of fundamentalism.

Negativism is not a popular product.

It's a little premature to count the Dems out already, isn't it? Right now, there's no need to be positive, i.e., offer policies, etc, right now.

I don't think speaking substandard English is the answer.

Sorry, I know it's not all that relevant to the discussion, but the linguist in me can't quite let this go by.  Non-standard English is not substandard English.  Back to your regularly scheduled commenting...

We are indeed in for a long slog. But a long-term strategy is precisely what is needed. Right now in this country everybody knows that the Republican Party is the "values" party. Everybody knows they're the small government party, everybody knows they're the fiscal responsibility party. None of these things are true, but that doesn't matter. And everybody knows that the Democratic Party stands for...dunno. Don't underestimate the power of letting them know where you stand. If the Democratic Party will not define itself (by the actions of its leaders and elected officials), then it will continue to be defined by Republicans.

This will require a cohesive vision and a willingness to tell the high-rolling money people to shove it. The Democratic elected officials who exist right now must embrace, wholeheartedly, a willingness to  work against corporate interests when they conflict with people's health and livelihoods and do so consistently. In fact, just make it a point of standing up to big corporate interests in general. They must be willing to work against the interests of the wealthy and powerful, and make sure that people know that they are doing it on behalf of the little guy. The Democratic Party must make a sustained effort to position itself as the doorway that middle and working class folks can use to access the halls of power that have until now been inaccessible. This is done through voting, through fighting power at every opportunity, through refusal to compromise on issues that affect the little guy. Do this for ten years or so, and when you ask people what the Democratic Party stands for, they'll say that it's the party that stands for sticking it to the man.

So step one, stand for something (besides winning elections). Step two, stand for it consistently and loudly. Step three, give it a chance to sink in.

Right now the loss in popularity that the Republicans are experiencing is not being met with a corresponding rise for Dems. This should be troubling enough to cause major disruptive change in the party. 

I’m going to disappoint everyone here. I have some general ideas about solutions to the political problem we face, but they are not specific or sharply defined.

Mr Franks,

You didn't disappoint those of us who are by now long used to your particular blend of sarcasm, cheap shots and cultural snobbery. One would have to be deluded, or insufferably full of himself, to think anyone would look for "inspiration" to a man whose stock in trade is spite -- as indicated by this closing statement and so many others:

... my faith is restored: If only our guys would talk the language again, would put on that sunny disposition, would speak to people out in the midwest, why, everything would snap back into place. 

A gentle suggestion: RESPECT the workingman. Listen to him, to his wife, his parents, his children. Accept the fact that white working class Americans, no less than black or hispanic working class Americans, are religious and are concerned above all with instilling decent values in their children amidst an environment in which there is next to no security of any sort. 

Before you respond with your customary sneers, would you kindly explain to us whether you think that hispanic Americans, who increasingly are turning to the Republicans (Bush gained ca. 9 percentage points last autumn vs 2000), also deserve your cheap "false consciousness" rap? If not, then why are whites alone presented as caricatures in your book of grotesqueries? What is it about religious, homophobic lower-class whites that makes them, and not religious homophobic lower-class blacks and hispanics, fools and monsters? Conversely, do you think that an upper-middle class suburbanite who fails to vote his class interest is a dupe of some kind of "false" class consciousness?

Orwell described Dickens with admiration as "generously angry." You'd do well to add some generosity to your anger. In its absence all you have is spleen.

 

I'm not sure I agree with all your points either, but I uprated you (as I did another poster) because someone inappropriately downrated your comment. *Please* everyone show some civility, generosity, and common sense. Zeros and ones are for right-wing trolls and ad hominem. Twos are warning shots across the bough for right-wing trolls and ad hominem. Threes suggest you have nothing better to do with your time than rate comments that don't interest you. And fours and fives are for everything else. We're liberals, remember? We use positive reinforcement. We don't spank our kids except in the rare circumstances they're acting like super trolls, and we don't spank each other unless we're dating and into that kind of thing.

Mossback: I don't think Frank says economics is the "only fit object of politics," only that it should be paid a hell of a lot more attention than it is. But the part of your post that I really don't understand is this: you claim that "government...can do a great deal to shape personal behavior." Really? Do you really think that inveighing against Paris Hilton is either (a) a proper task for government, or (b) something it's at all effective at?

Fact is, trash sells. That doesn't mean we can't do anything about it...but what needs to be done is to connect the right's Market Uber Alles philosophy with the very "immorality" the right condemns. They're force-feeding you nothing but Twinkies and then telling you it's the damned liberals' fault you're fat and pasty.

One way to try to reverse the marketization of everything is to note that if no values other than the bottom line are considered, the bottom line quickly turns to the lowest common denominator. Instead of a broad array of producers with varying concerns both aesthetic and ethical, we get nothing but buck-whoring shysters. But it's not "government" that should shape personal behavior - it's the people.

 Well it is a two-way street isn’t it? The fellow on the loading dock makes very valid points but what is he doing about it? Voting republican? I have worked on the dock, I have dug ditches, I have done logging, I have driven trucks, hell, I even got to bury a dead cow once. I also went back to school more than once so I wouldn’t have to dig ditches and bury dead cows. I became a mechanical designer where I have worked on everything from satellites to machines that simulate the electro-magnetic pulse of a nuclear explosion for testing instruments on military equipment. When computers entered the work scene I learned how to use them, I continued to go back to school to keep up with new programs for designing. The last time I went I spent six thousand dollars of my own money to pay for it. When I spoke out against free trade someone told me I should look in a mirror because that is where the problem was. Fooey.

 On top of all that according to right-wing pin-head pundits tell me I should pull myself up by my bootstraps even though is goes against all the known laws of physics.

 Folks, this is a government for the people and by the people and that means it is our government, not their government. Yes the democrats should reach out and they do need to change the way they are perceived but people also need to go out of their way a little bit to be involved, to be informed, to contribute even a small amount.

 Bloggers could help by speaking plain English so even dock workers can understand them. Dock workers neither speak Latin, nor do they speak French and they never say nattering nabobs of nepotism.

Quite frankly I think the spine is the key not the populism.  It was Clinton's willingness to fight back not any of his policies that helped gain him support against the Republicans.

I think you exaggerate both the 'timeless' greatness of "Pulp Fiction" (one of the better 'pop culture' positive examples you cited) and VASTLY UNDERSTATE the degree of the suppression of ideas and views in the world we live in.  As soon as ideas might matter -- such as in the possibility of providing a 'wild card' of a unique spur to opposition to wars, they are in serious danger.  Just ask John Lennon.

    And that one dramatic example might seem isolated, but there are many many authentic progressives, including artists, facing severe difficulties all the time in the real America.  I for one have never been able to get my poetry reputably published, although my poetry, as an aspect of my work, might not be the best example one could cite in genera (too subjective a standard.)   But overall, our culture is, like our news as described by Chomsky, a propaganda system and not a market, enforced, as Chomsky does NOT fully confront, not only by conformity but by brutal, usually veiled (Lennon an exceptional case there, Fred Hampton even moreso) repression.  Of course, it is veiled precisely so that it can be denied, and those who point it out can be pilloried -- both as false and pilloried with underground repression at the same time.

Two things strike me of interest in Frank's posting. 
First, was the mentioning of Friedman on the left (egad!)  and the second was the gratuitous reference to a sunny disposition, which had not to my knowledge been supported by any of the evidence presented -- that Democrats have to speak to gut lunchpail issues more effectively, and, I might add, more substantively as well. 

    Just a semi-relevant paranthetical, before going into those two points: the posting from DU with 107 votes for greatest page (which might be at or near the all time record!) indicates much by that response from DUers.  The problem is not a cultural bias
on the part of blogosphere lefties, for sure, who are -- with some obvious exceptions on the thread itself -- the great majority of posters at DU.  The problem must be sought somewhere else, possibly in the realm of a blockage somewhere of effective authentic progressive organizing that would otherwise occur.  That is how what may seem an 'arcane' or 'effete' issue of underground repression comes in as key precisely to the addressing of the most basic issues that affect all Americans directly.  If people are not free to other than get with the program and to pursue effective authentic progressive strategies, as Frank proposes -- and if they are only allowed, so to speak, coffee makers that conform to the fire code, as mentioned elsewhere -- then the most basic concerns go unaddressed.  Authentic comprehensive freedom, not just to have performance horsesh** art but to really grapple with issues effectively (eg by having a peace movement organization, modeled after ACORN type groups that canvass door-to-door for members and donations and mobilize members in chapters, on the Iraq War and militarism generally) is the essential missing link, in my view, of why progressives have not been able to mobilize middle America more effectively. In turn, the greatest flaw of the progressives of the 'political class' (as the snooty expression goes) is the failure of courage to explicitly point out and confront that underground repression, the justifying of the lying, etc.  You can't have a canvass, say, on Iraq across the country until you confront the 'glass walls' of repression that prevent such a large scale idea from even being effectively pursued.

Back to the two issues.  First,  I myself am a socialist, and not the nice kind (like DSA) who basically have a liberal world view and then attach that to some Fabian Socialist ideas (with the notion that they, "Democratic" Socialists of America embody the only democratic approach to socialist politics).  I am a radical socialist who is firm in opposition to imperialism and at core is not averse to supporting national liberation movements where they are progressive for their circumstances and pose some reasonable chance of really making positive headway.

But on this site, where Chomsky, let alone my politics, is more or less beyond the pale of discussion (but Bernie Sanders was at table for one) I have put forward a series of bread-and-butter proposals that meet the following criteria -- they are workable and they have at least the potential for majority support.  These ideas include:

*taxes on pollution and scarce resources, and using a portion of those revenues for job creation or the specific protection of workers in their respective spheres.  For example, VERY high rates of taxes on redwood wood not only raising revenue but curtailing demand deliberately (eg to price redwood lawn furniture out for all but the rich) could also generate hundreds of millions or more in revenue in the State of California alone (it could be a State policy).  Much could go to ecological efforts, like buying up stands of virgin redwoods, as well as buying up clear-cut land by eminent domain, with a penalty for the spoilage of resources levied on those responsible, but much could go, overlapping those efforts, to generating jobs for virtually all the unemployed unionized logging workers, including especially in forestry, and not just in DEforestry.   On the issue of agrichemicals, even those toxic or suspected toxic chemicals allowed could be heavily taxed to discourage use, as well as agriwater (over the first acre-foot of usage per year).  These monies could go in part to help farmworkers' health from the damage that agrichemicals have done and continue to do, even with the much stricter regulation that should accompany the tax.  Other facilities (like adequate bathrooms) and enforcement, and public sector type "wealth" (schools, training programs, other public institutions beneficial to the workers) could also be financed from these monies.   (As a socialist I would like to see monies go into economic cooperativization of much agriculture, but I know, no dice). 

*Local unemployment caps -- there are areas of extremely high unemployment, where the rate in a given Congressional District or a contiguous area the SIZE of a Congressional District that have unemployment in the double digits.  A WPA type program could generate including jobs in the kind of small-size but large scale in situ housing development -- building neighborhoods instead of projects, without any need for 'urban removal' at all.
These jobs could include jobs in neighborhood development and housing, but also in eco-industrialization, in programs of training in public needs like health followed by work in community clinics, in urban beautification, and many other areas, like CCC and WPA did.  The areas with unemployment rates over 12% say, could have a number of federal jobs created equal to the official unemployment rate above that for eligible applicants living in the delineated area, with the understanding that the economic multiplier effect would radiate outward in the neighborhood and provide a third layer (over the investment as well as employment in the area) of boost.

It should be recalled that shifts in taxes not only to the wealthy (estate taxes and rollback of the W Bush tax cuts of those making over $200K) but also in the area of pollution and scarce resources could be at least partly offset by decreases in payroll taxes including those paid by employers that act as a disincentive to additional hiring.  Thus the disincentive would be to pollution, rather than to hiring, or production, or sales, within a given industry.  (Coal industry payroll taxes might be reduced as coal industry emissions are taxed, etc.)

These posted ideas (see:
http://www.tpmcafe.com/comments/2005/6/12/12013/3736/13#13
note BOTH comments)
are at numerous locations outlined, with little interest evoked:
http://www.tpmcafe.com/comments/2005/6/28/13391/0559/32#32
http://www.tpmcafe.com/comments/2005/7/19/135925/314/33#33
http://www.tpmcafe.com/comments/2005/6/25/122538/883/25#25

to mention a few. ( I am not coy about plugging my stuff -- after all, I NEVER get published in Harpers', so to that extent I have always had  to be my own parade even more!)

But these ideas are the complement to the kind of discussion raised in the DU post, to address masses of workers (the overwhelming majority of whom, at the low end, are white collar 'proletariat' not blue collar).
 
But these ideas, which I believe could help Democrats, especially in strongly Democratic areas, muster support, and not only enthuse the base but reach out to some skeptical mainstreamers, despite Republican inevitable protestations about too much taxation and too much regulation, are tailored to appeal to the center but are all to the left of Friedman.  I have a hard time coming up with ANY ideas as far right as Friedman that are worthwhile, except those things W Bush does that he opposes, and we both agree!  As far as I can see, the mainstream of the Democratic Party is emerging to the left of Friedman, accept those horrid DLC/Al From "Democrats" crusading to dump abortion from the Democrats' platform, grinding their own most invidious axes.

I agree then with Frank that speaking to the necessary issues, adding a few of my own substantive ones here to illustrate, means being to the left of Friedman, and it means focusing away from issues that are perceived as 'snobby' which Democrats have been trying to do.  I disagree that the Democratic Party must embrace an aggressive foreign policy to have popular support -- it must confront the real power elite's i-word preferences (imperialist) and unite with the mass public on the issues and in the language that most appeals.

But to do that, somewhere activists need to confront the elephant in the room of US politics -- underground repressive machine, 'get with the program' 'justify the lying' politics.  You can't make souffle using horsesh** rather than butter.

Reality Check 1: not everyone is college material, or wants to be. Some people just aren’t good at brain-work but that’s no excuse to denigrate their values as human beings, nor relegate them to some sort of neo-feudalist Helot existence.
Reality check 2: There are, and always will be, plenty of very necessary and useful jobs that do not require a college degree or high intelligence: from ditch digging to waitressing to retail clerking to health care aide work.
Numbers 1 and 2 actually go together quite well: people match up jobs! The problem is that the jobs do not pay decent wages or provide decent benefits., And so that is the challenge: not turning everyone into PhDs, but upgrading the work people do so they can live a dignified and (dare I say it?) middle class existence.

as I myself am a libertarian about those kind of issues, and as someone who has studied lots of American cultural history, I think most Americans still are, deep down, and I think for the GOP to go there was to appeal mostly to socially conservative "bases" and not to the majority,

BUT I appreciate you taking the time to post here, as I think reading your feelings is helpful for everyone.

Still, have you read anything of Mr. Frank's work? I don't know where you get the idea that the "sneering" meme comes in with Frank, nor with a lot of commenters on this thread. It is interesting in itself that you can't let go of that, that you see it here. Reveals a bitterness that I think Dems should be attentive to.

It just seems to me right off by the words you use like you are still buying the whole "liberals are ridiculous p.c. free-loving hippies set to destroy civilization as we know it" culture war of the 60's that was revived in the 80's by the right wing media machine.

How many fans of Paris Hilton, or Barbra Streisand for that matter do you think frequent this website? Did you ever ask yourself where you got the impression that Democrats are "for" Paris Hilton or the decline of quality output by "Hollywood"? Perhaps they just bristle at the idea that the fix for that can be legislated?

"John Kerry lost the last election": well, not necessarily...see the Conyers Report, and the cover article in the latest issue of Harper's, and...

"I'm not sure I agree with all your points either, but I uprated you ... because someone inappropriately downrated your comment."

Rather than trying to game the system, perhaps you should rate comments depending on the comment, instead of how others rated it.

"Zeros and ones are for right-wing trolls and ad hominem. Twos are warning shots across the bough for right-wing trolls and ad hominem."

Perhaps you might want to review the ratings guidelines instead of making up your own.

"Please everyone show some civility, generosity, and common sense."

Which of those does categories your practice of revenge ratings fall under?

I'll boil down my response to a hopefully useful meme:

"Clarity should never be made an enemy of intellectual expression, lest we cede the speech of leadership to imbeciles."

Let's not forget that the system that beat Communism was the mixed economy of the fifties, sixties, and seventies, not the winner-take-all society we live in today.  Had that system been in effect then, the socialist alternatives might have prevailed.

So why couldn't we keep that system?