Mark Warner: “If the Republicans offer fear, we need to offer hope.”

Warner was asked whether the Democrats, who almost always seem to be on the more popular side of the issues yet still lose to the "gays, guns and God vote", need someone like Karl Rove to win. Someone who would find ways to manipulate and message in a manner that would convince, if not frighten people into supporting Democrats. Warner outright rejected the suggestion. `We don't need our own Karl Rove. We don't need someone of nefarious means to try to divide and manipulate and frighten people into following us.' He spoke of accountability and responsibility in a cooperative manner that helped people address what was really important to their lives and their communities - namely their livelihoods and their futures. He pointed out that he was able to instill an atmosphere of community rather than hate and division and even get solid Republican Virginians to agree to help rectify the massive $3.4 billion debt (5 times more than the reckless previous Republican administration revealed he would be inheriting) with "revenue enhancements". That's right, he was able to get Republicans to agree to raise taxes to address the state's dismal bond rating, even stating that one Republican legislator shouted on the State Senate floor "I hate taxes, but I love Virginia more."

This marks a difference in approach to how Democrats butt heads with the Republican anti-tax mantra. Rather than saying `everyone needs to pay their fair share' and demanding tax increases, Warner's approach appears to be to acknowledge those things that Virginians (and Americans) value most, finding solutions that embrace and bolster those values, and if it is necessary to increase revenues, to allow people to see how their tax dollars provide direct benefits to what it is that they value. In that way, people don't feel their money is disappearing into the black hole of government, but they feel as if they are making a contribution to help their own communities and their own futures. Further, this appeals to the things that unite communities not divide them. It provides a true sense of hope, not the venom and anger of Rove.

His message stayed populist, centered around empowering people. Not in the hollow Republican manner of spending $1.6 billion thinking up catchy slogans as people drown to death in their attics, but in actually getting government to work for the people. By looking at the areas where people are struggling and doing what you can to help them out. He touted an initiative where he was able to get a high tech software development company to hire 300 people in a small town that was past its coal mining prime. He stressed the importance of finding ways to get American companies to insource rather than outsource. For this reason, Warner also helped get widespread broadband internet access to rural parts of Southwest Virginia, giving communities a tangible tool to help them compete. And his education restructuring had the same weak-point reinforcement approach, focusing vital resources into failing schools that were struggling, rather than punishing them Republican style (whereby a school with insufficient resources is bled even more - as if beating a beaten-down horse would reinvigorate it somehow.)

It may seem subtle, but the essence of the approach is really to change the brand image of the Democrats. Rather than having the redstater perception of "liberal elitists" who think they know best, the idea is to retool the conversation from a fine wine-sipping tone to an ice tea-sipping tone. Warner talked to the people he wanted to help in their own language. He sponsored a NASCAR truck, had a bluegrass campaign song, and he addressed the redstaters with respect and concern rather than the contempt and anger fueled by Rove.

I asked him, as I asked General Clark, how the Democrats can compete with a Republican Party that caters to fear and the reptile brain. His response: "counter with hope." `If the Republicans offer fear, we need to offer hope. We need to offer the promise of America, the idea that, with good governance, this country can be one where ordinary people have a chance to make it. This is something that is vanishing in America with the current course of Republican policy. Something people are increasingly aware of and that fuels their anxiety. We need to make average people feel that they have a stake in this country, a sense of responsibility to it, and attack every problem not from the standpoint of liberal versus conservative or Democrat versus Republican, but as Americans.' This, he insists will counter the fear mongering, by offering a cure to the fear, and this is how he said he believes he was able to win big in such a ravenously red state.

As for national security, the topic the Republicans have managed to hijack like a rabid grizzly having its way with a baby chipmunk, Warner's message was very similar to Wes Clark's. `National security', he said `is not just about a strong military. It's about financial security, educational security. It's about creating educated Americans that can develop the industries of tomorrow and keep America competitive. It's about not stretching our military too thin.' On Iraq, he also stressed `giving the Sunnis a stake in the government to minimize the possibility of all out civil war, ending the practice of spending 30 cents of every reconstruction dollar on protecting Halliburton, when the money should be going to reconstruct Iraq instead, and most of all getting other countries involved with the reconstruction already so they would have a stake and be willing to help.'

He felt Iran was a very grave threat to the United States, if not the greatest threat. He felt "all options should be on the table with Iran, including the nuclear option, if necessary." (Different from the nucular option, which is preemptive, offensive nucular strikes by imperialist neoCons). And while he suggested that a (rational and sane) Commander in Chief should have "every available option necessary to defend the United States, the nuclear option should not be the first option, or the second, third, fourth or even the fifth" - i.e., it should only be the last resort.

I also asked him about the electronic voting irregularities of the 2004 election. His response: `regardless of what may have happened with the machines, I can tell you that in two thirds of the country, we simply got creamed. In these rural areas, people far preferred the Republicans by a two out of three margin. This should never happen. We should be able to compete there. We should be able to win by enough of a margin that vote-fixing isn't even an issue. That's what I was able to do in Virginia.'

Warner also felt the Democrats needed to constantly point out their successes. In programs that helped people, putting state budgets back on track, improving education systems - wherever it may be, `these are the things we need to point to again and again as proof that we do have a better way.'

Finally, he said "Democrats have to start being the party of the future, not the past. They can't keep trying to re-fight the last campaign." Citing several examples, he continued `just because we lost the last election to a candidate who campaigned on his faith doesn't mean we run the same campaign next time only talking about faith more. We need to have a fresh approach to each campaign independent of past performance and based on the reality of the present. And we have to stop campaigning in just 16 states, hoping to win Florida or Ohio to achieve success. We need to reach out across the board and deep into that two-thirds of America (geographically speaking) that votes Republican.'

Warner seemed to possess an open minded, problem solving, take-it-to-the-people kind of aura. When answering questions from those present, he freely admitted to not knowing what he didn't know without obfuscating some political-speak BS. For example, he flat out admitted that he didn't know the best course of action in Darfur, but he said he would like to hear what peoples' ideas were and help to develop a solution. Warner struck me as having the persona of a problem solver. It's his way of cutting through ideology and looking for what he feels is the best solution. Whether you agree with his plan or not, he seemed like the kind of guy that would actually learn about a situation, evaluate solutions, apply them, measure results, and correct course - basically a universe diametrically opposite that of Bush & Co. What you would expect a responsible and competent CEO to do with a dynamic and competitive company.

Can this translate to Democratic electoral success across the board? Can North-Eastern Democrats have an ease and realness about them that appeals to the redstaters at a gut level the way Warner's demeanor seems to? That remains to be seen, however Warner's approach, to engage people in hopeful, cooperative, problem solving ways that bring progressive and liberal values to fruition seems far better than either trying to prove why our way is better than the Republican way (the cram logic and facts down their throats campaign), or to simply adopt Republican themes as if you're Republican lite (the triangulating centrist strategy campaign).