Yesterday, ThirdEstate asked what the difference is between this group of proposals and any other laundry list (as, ThirdEstate says, Dems have been proposing for years). Here are the differences.

First, this is a broad list aimed directly at the middle class. Something Democrats haven't done for years.

Second, it is quantifiable, measurable and concrete. Each of the goals is tied to specific implementable, if ambitious, policies aimed to achieve the goals.

Third, these goals are not a smorgasbord pulled out of the ether. They relate to values -- respect for the individual, equal opportunity and fairness and an active and involved government -- that have the bedrock of the Democratic party, and the core of the American value system, for years.

When I talk about these ideas to regular middle-class voters, I see them listening and nodding in ways they have never done with the standard laundry lists.

That said, this is the first step in working towards our own eight words for 2008 and beyond.

The answer to some of his critique is in my comment below.

To answer other parts in brief:

The mechanics that drive the specific ideas in the book, including funding the increased education spending, are more fully explained in the book, in ways that I hope will be more satisfying.

 More broadly, 50% does strike some as it struck Mark Schmitt.  But I believe that for each of these eleven goals, it is actually an ambitious goal, that would help the Baileys in meaningful ways.  If we claimed we would solve everything 100%, voters would never believe us.  They are realistic, but want progress.

Senator,

Where were you and the rest of the Democratic senators when it came time to visible support the CT candidate for senator (Ned Lamont!) against Joe Lieberman. You really let CT - and now, the nation - down.

One glaring ommission from the list, in my mind at least, is health care. While (arguably) not as important to middle-class citizens as it is to the poor, I can't help but think it is going to play huge in 2008 and beyond- as it should.

Single-payer universal anyone?

Sentor -- Thanks for doing the coffee house today.

Your proposal on dealing with terrorism has one bullet point for diplomacy and four or five that are on the military track.

You don't mention at all a concern for grievances that terror-masters use to exploit the public so that there terrorist acts "seem" legitimate in the eyes of the some. Zbigniew Brzezinski has written that nearly all terrorism has a grievance at its core -- that others exploit. He thinks we need to steal from terror-organizers the opportunity to exploit audiences.

How do you feel about this? Shouldn't our response to terrorism be more rounded out than you suggest?

And why in the world did you think that someone as bellicose as John Bolton was a good representative for American interests at the United Nations??

Many thanks,

Steve Clemons
The Washington Note

Your efforts toward saving the middle class are necessary and good; but this lifelong democrat may just leave the party if you don't impeach Bush and Cheney. Impeachment would be salutory for our system of government and the public's understanding of it, and would go along way toward restoring America's credibility and leadership in the world. If we don't impeach, we will never fully recover.

It's good to talk about a platform which will solidify political power, but what about a platform which addresses the crucial issues facing our nation in the next 30 years, namely: the massive and unsustainable budget shortfalls predicted for the medicare and social security programs and the effects of global warming and consequent drastic need to reduce emissions. Adressing both of these concerns is vital to the future of our country, but politically difficult. How do you see the Democratic party leading the way on these two important challenges?

What about the Military Commissions Act? Some of outside observers were appalled to see this grab for monarchical power get through the US Congress, and so much of the political elite and the general public apathetic about it.

When will the rule of law become an explicit Democratic position?

Senator,

I admire the impulse behind your book, and many of the proposals are spot-on and useful, but as another commenter drew attention to, the primary issue of our time, at least constitutionally, seems to be the necessity of taming the Executive branch, particularly with regard to war powers. How do we convince the broad middle of the American public that this is necessary? And how then do we start to do it? Perhaps it's time for some binding resolutions from Congress.

I'd also be interested, more generally, in the extent to which you think Congress can be returned to its historical position as "first" branch of government, a position it held for most of the 19th C.

Thanks for your time and hard work.

Ben Cronin

Sen. Schumer,

Thanks for stopping by and taking the time to discuss this.

My concerns echo Mark Schmitt's, in that the laundry list here is enough to even the dedicated political junkie's eyes glaze over. But I'd like to take it another step further, and question the wisdom of focusing exclusively on the "middle class." First, because as noble as the efforts of our party to support the middle class have been in the past, I am not certain that such an entity can be said to still exist in anything resembling a uniform sense on a national level. Second, while these are all noble proposals, they don't address what I think is the core of working American concerns today.

Strictly defined, "middle class" are those who are neither wealthy nor in poverty. But for most of the 20th century, this referred to a very specific segment of the population. They were the laborers in America's manufacturing industry, along with the teachers, firefighters, dock workers and tradesmen that surrounded it. They lived primarily in the cities and suburbs of the northeastern megalopolis, the railroad cities and towns of the midwest, the small factory towns of the south, and scattered along the west coast. The collapse of American manufacturing, however, undercut not just those manufacturing workers, but all of the economies that surrouned it. Here in NC, the double-whammy of textile job losses and the long overdue collapse of the tobacco economy simply gutted middle class neighborhoods in small towns across the state.

Sen. Schumer, my concern is that your list merely addresses the ghosts of those concerns. Certainly, there are plenty of factories, docks, and warehouses left where the middle class operates. And while all of your proposals will absolutely help people who need it, they do not address the overriding popular anxiety of our time. I'll go ahead and make a semi-radical argument that issues such as free trade and gay marriage are fundamentally linked in that people are concerned that the American way of life that they have known and loved for decades is changing out from under their feet, and there is quite simply no way to keep everyone on board with education funding and property tax cuts.

So, by all means, blast through that list in the next two years, and run over the President's veto pen so many times that you have ink all over your tires. But at the same time, Democrats must, at some level, rhetorically speak to how the government is going to keep the winds of the rapidly shifting global market from blowing us from one short lived job in one city to another in another, leaving an atomized populace with no grounding in place and social connections frayed to thin threads.

Just a pertinent quote. “We can have concentrated wealth in the hands of a few or we can have democracy. But we cannot have both.” — Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis ...

My son is a freshman in college at Wesleyan University and he is disappointed that the Democratic Congress is not taking any action to end the Iraq War. I told him that while Congress has the power to declare war, and to fund wars, the power to end wars is less well defined. I also noted that Congress never expressly declared war agaisnt Iraq or for that matter the 1st Gulf War or the Vietnam War. I told my son that what the new Democratic Congress will do is provide oversight and investigate the executive branch. What makes Congressional efforts to extricate US forces from Iraq even more difficult is the fierce resistance of the executive branch to what is percieved by the VP as an encroachment in executive power. This Administration has not been shy about demonizing its' political opposition, so any attempt to cut off funding must not be seen as hurting the troops in harms way. What would you say to my son about the role Congress can play regarding the Iraqui quagmire?

dorman4

And the 1st amendment is protected by putting a fee on protected speech based on content?  I respectfully and unequivocably disagree.  It is arbitary and capricious and lays the groundwork for an argument against the principle of net neutrality...

That said, I do want to remind everyone that – as I say in the book – talking to the Baileys does not mean turning our back on other issues that Democrats have been championing for generations. It means expanding the party into a true coalition of the most disadvantaged Americans and the middle-class, to replace the old Reagan Revolution coalition of the wealthy and the middle-class.

I didn't get much of a sense of this, Senator Schumer - at least not from yeasterday's post. Almost everything I read seemed targeted at people like me - middle class parents. I appreciate the attention to middle class family values and prospetity, and the response to various anxieties people have about their kids and their kids' futures. But I didn't really see anything that seemed particularly geared toward the most disadvantaged. More importantly, I didn't feel anything in the proposals that points toward a new coalition of the middle class and the poor. Instead, the agenda seems built a bit too much around the sorts of individualistic values that tend to stigmatize the poor, and intensify middle class self identity and contempt for the less fortuante.

There are many areas in which the middle class and the disadvantaged could make common populist cause against the stinking rich. But the agenda really shies away from these areas. There are hints about recovering some of the revenue we lost to the Bush tax cuts. But overall, the agenda seems timid about alienating wealthy voters and corporations.

How about doing something direct and serious about corporate salaries and severance packages? In his recent SOTU response, Senator Webb brought up the topic of obscene inequalities in the compensation paid to the highest paid and lowest paid workers is US companies, and how different this is from the situation that prevailed just a few decades ago. How about proposing a ten year plan to make America a 20 to 1 society, i.e. a society in which the highest paid employeee in any firm makes no more than 20 times the amount of the lowest paid employee. The plan would involve various kinds of gentle encouragement and incentives, but also some serious government sticks and mandates. This kind of plan could probably make at least 90% of us better off, and free up gobs of money for health care and other benefits that our contemporary robber barons and incestuous corporate fat cats are denying to us. That's the sort of thing, it seems to me, that you can get the poor and the middle class to agree about.

This is going to sound really selfish but I kind of wonder what these Baileys really have in common with me, a single, working urbanite with no kids. I doubt I have the same interests as these "Baileys." Now, I'm not saying that the party should cater towards my odd tastes, because the party really can't, and probably shouldn't, but...

...Maybe the party shouldn't cater so entirely to these "Baileys" either.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

What about so-called sin taxes on alcohol and cigarettes?

Domestically, I think you are exaggerating. Sen. Schumer's solutions may be modest, too modest as you would apparently argue, but they address the concerns of real middle class Americans, and without their votes, nothing else is possible. The key question is: do things get better or worse with a Democratic vs. Republican Congress?

Not germaine...the last I checked smokes and booze weren't classified as protected speech under the 1st amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.  Pornography has been classified as protected speech by the SCOTUS...

I have commented on this site that Democrats should more aggressively target Christian Evangelical voters by pointing out that Republican policies and the Christian Bible are often dramatically contradictory.

Any comments?

www.fakeconsultant.blogspot.com

.> 2) Why didn't he and the DSCC do more
> for Ned Lamont?

I believe he answered that question over at DailyKos. To the Dem insiders, the answer he gave is complete and sufficient, and they are not going to address it any more. I realize that p****s you off, and it bothers me too, but they just ain't gonna talk about it and pursuing them like this doesn't help.

sPh

I suppose you're right. But it's this kind of thing, like agreeing to come onto an open forum and then only answering a few questions, that makes the whole thing look at he was just hear to flog his book. Which, I suppose is probably the case. But... I don't think Schumer acquitted himself too well here today.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

It seems a shame that we had two days or so to come up with questions and the Senator only had 40 minutes to type his response. It also seems to me that some good questions were left unasked, and I'm wondering if there should be a questions section in which people post questions prior to the visit from someone, and we use the ratings to determine a priority for asking questions? An idea...

Yeah, I don't think his Baileys are the kind of Baileys I like best, the Baileys of It's a Wonderful Life who had the guts to take on the moneyed interests and fight for the future of immigrants and those who were still dreaming of a middle class life.

Thanks for taking the time to chat with us at TPM Cafe, Senator.

In the thread about your book, I stated that Democrats stood for honest government. But now I'm thinking, do we really? Both parties seem to be in a thrall created by lobbyists and dependent on donations from big money: large corporations, religiously-motivated organizations and special interest groups. All of this seems to violate the principle of one man - one vote.

One of the most effective things the Democrats could do to ensure success in '08 (thinking on a purely strategic level, although the benefit to the country as a whole would far outweigh the partisan issues) would be to finally pass campaign reform laws with real meat in them - not window dressing and not partial measures, but something that really gets at the root of the problem. Total public financing might be one idea, if such a thing is really possible. Democrats running for office would be able to point to their courage in fighting for campaign reform and a grateful country would be sure to respond with votes at election time. I'd be interested in your thoughts on this.

(originally posted at 3:31PM; edited for clarity at 3:58PM.)

Edited yet one more time at 7:09PM:

Let me add, Senator Schumer, since I know you were deeply involved in Democratic fundraising in the last election, that I meant no offense by this question. I am very happy that your fundraising efforts were successful and that the Democrats have control of Congress, in part due to your efforts. Thank you once again for those efforts.

What I had (very roughly) in mind is that a system could be developed which took into account first amendment issues and also equalized the greater ability of the Republicans to generate donations from wealthier individual donors. Perhaps there could be some sort of general funding for targeted advertising of some sort - I don't mean to suggest it should necessarily be eliminated entirely. And maybe all political donations could go into some sort of pool also, to be divied up according to some formula that could be developed to disperse the funds fairly.

Politics is the art of preventing people from taking part in affairs which properly concern them. --Paul Valery

It may also be that the Senator isn't used to our posting forms here at TPM Cafe. At other sites, chats typically post line by line and don't take you to a second page, nor do they have "Preview" options, so maybe there was a bit of a learning curve for the Senator that inadvertently took up some of the time. Perhaps the Cafe could look into a chat client, if this sort of thing is contemplated for the future. I think it's a great idea and I'm sure that one way or another the kinks can be ironed out.

Some other adjustments to this format that could help might be greater advanced notice (a week-long banner at the top of The Coffee House? or a banner in all sub-forums?), to encourage more participation and greater info on where the post is going to be posted.

It's great that we have heavy-weights like Schumer who are participating here, was it you, Andrew, who arranged it?

Politics is the art of preventing people from taking part in affairs which properly concern them. --Paul Valery

"First off, 50% represents a real benchmark against which the “Baileys” can measure our progress towards our goals, it does not represent compromise. In fact, once we get to 50%, we should do it again. And again." -- Schumer.
---

Christ, he sounds like an AMWAY salesman !!!

AHHHHHHHHHHHH !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No, they don't. They don't address any middle class concerns. In fact, if they do anything they reinforce the stereotype of the Democrat busybody telling everyone else how to live, what to eat and where to go to school. NONE of these do one damned thing to improve any of the problems that middle class people have, such as losing jobs, having health insurance, their sons dying in a war that is so screwed up Hercules couldn't unravel it.

Do you really believe the greatest concerns of the American middle class are fat kids and cancer study funding and porn taxes and math teachers? I am going to say something here, that needs to be said to every single politician in Washington D.C. - FIX the problems, STOP adding to them. Just once, one of them has to stand up and tell the American people the truth - we are in a world of hurt, and if we don't ALL start tightening our belts, negotiating with our so-called enemies, getting the infrastructure in order before another Katrina disaster hits and get the national debt under control we're ALL going down the drain. What the American middle class wants is to get up in the morning and go about their work and lives with the hope and belief that it has some meaning - that their children's lives will be better than theirs and any sacrifices they make now is to forward that goal.

Yes, thanks Senator Schumer for stopping by and yakking it up with us little people and thanks for the 50% percent solutions program that I can guarantee you will be ridiculed as the half ass democrat solutions but for the sake of everything we believe in and hope for this country, stand up and take a stand, be a hero, be a real patriot - do something other than offer some bullshit office sessions "solutions" that are worthless to middle class Americans who are seeing their kids die in a worthless war, who can't afford tuition, who don't have health care, who live by levees and damns and have no hope that anything, ever will be done to make this country better.

Oh, and thanks for listening.

I agree, I think this is a great place for exposure for everyone with folks liek Schumer. Much appreciated.

Schumer needs to face a well financed netroots challenger in the 2010 election, but that is a LONG WAY off.  Best to start raising awareness now. Schumer is too far to the right to be a legitimate representative, especially from NY.

The fanaticus freaks in the evangelical churches are lockstep partisans of the fascist in the Bush government and the republican reich who obviously cannot, or do not read either the Bible, or any news beyond Drudge and Newsmax. Their fascist ideologies are polar opposite and anathema to anything ever taught or lived as example by Jeshua ben Joseph. Underneath the fake rapture proclamations and partisan hagiography are a population of ignorant biggots, racists, and fascists who will condenm to eternal damnation or actually kill anyone who dares to challenge their perveted bastardization of christianity in the name of god.

These freaks have enjoyed wildly disproportionate influence in the government under the fascist grip of the Bush government and the republican reich.

As a student of comparative religion and a believer in, and one who studies the teachings of the Nazarene' I reject and renounce these lying conniving exploitive greedy money thirsty biggots racists and perverters of the masters teaching, and turn away from them.

The DNC should turn it's back to the evangelical fundamentalist christains. Ignore these freaks They are either ill, ignorant and woefully decieved, or complicit in the deceptions, tyranny, and fascism, and not worth any political focus, energy, resources, or effort. Ignore the evangelicals completely and let them chatter amongst themselves. Their power is compounded by the fascist in the Bush government ad the GOP who use them as a marketing tool and disinformation and propaganda arm, and have no voice or power outside these fascist circles.

America is not a fundamentalist christian nation, despite the deceptive forked-tongued conjurings of Karl Rove, the Rendon Group, or Baker Botts, Unification Church, the Universal Peace Federation, the Federalist Society, Points of Light Foundation the Christian Coalition, Opus Dei, the Baptist Convention, and all the fascists in the evangelical Churches. These maniuplative lying freaks do not represent America, or Americans. Ignore them completely, and MOVEON.

I wish I could rate this a "10"...