Armed Liberal has been weighing in on this subject for a while, and lately others have joined the discussion regarding foreign policy and other issues (see also Daiblog). Democratic Party supporters are searching for a coherent message that will get them real traction with U.S. voters. Things aren't approaching panic levels just yet, but "concerned" is a fair description of the general mindset.
TIME Magazine's center-liberal columnist Joe Klein is also contributing to this important debate, via some advice for the American Democratic party:
"And so, yes, the Democrats do have a chance in 2004. A chance, but they will have to become something different from the Democrats we have come to know and ridicule. They face challenges on three different fronts: patriotism, optimism and confidence."Hmm, sounds vaguely familiar. There's also some very sound advice over at Blaster's Blog - advice that, as Matthew Yglesias points out, the Democrats are very unlikely to take.
How long does it take to teach a politican anything? Generally, about 3 elections. Let's see, 2000, 2002.... Nope. Still, the very existence of this discussion is a good sign for all sides, and for everyone with an interest in U.S. policy.
That things have not reached panic levels just yet can only be reassuring to Republicans and discouraging to those who favor a vigorous two party system. The donks are starting to look as pathetic as the Tories in the UK. Odd how we have become out of phase with them, but Blair has done the DLC thing much better than Clinton or Gore.
They need some sort of vision. Optimism really is the key word. The Dems used to be the party of optimism about Americans and about the future. They need to offer real ideas and a vision that sells America. That we can be better than we are.
From Peggy Noonan's article"
Your party won't even agree to ban third-term abortions--which is the abortion of a baby who looks and seems fully human and capable of life because he is.
Aren't third term abortions illegal unless the life of the mother is in question?
But Republicans by and large don't suffer from blind loyalty or blind antagonism.
Yeah, right. Not in my experience. Both sides have this in spades.
{...}
They will kill his presidency if they conclude he is essentially destructive (it was his Republican base in Congress that ended Richard Nixon's career).
And here I thought Nixon did himself in with some help from Woodward and Bernstein.
Recently it was Republicans who did in their own Senate majority leader because they would not accept a certain kind of nonsense.
Or really because he was too much of a political liability.
If George W. Bush begins to seriously compromise conservative political philosophy, or to behave in a manner grossly offensive in a leader, they will turn on him too.
They won't have to be forced with that choice. Rove isn't stupid.
I agree with her on pretty much everything else.
[1] Impeachment doesn't happen by magic, lindenen, it's an act of the Congressional branch. Nixon resigned because it was clear that if he didn't, he'd be impeached. It was also clear that many votes for that impeachment (remember, this followed the Democrats' 1972 debacle) would have come from Republicans. Would have to, in fact, given the votes required. Republican representatives were fully behind the hearings and playing prominent roles. So Noonan isn't wrong about that.
[2] There are laws under consideration related to 3rd trimester abortions, so that's a live issue in the USA.
[3] As for Trent Lott, if you read many of the conservative columnists at the time it was clear that this went beyond issues of political liability. They were genuinely ticked off.
Beyond that, yes there are blind partisans on both sides (Totten did a good piece on that recently) and agree, Dubya isn't likely to really burn his base as long as Rove is around.
Saw this in the doctor's office (where I've been spending too much time lately, hence limited blogging) and started a response.
Basic rule: things are never as awful or wonderful as people claim they are. The Democratic Party, and progressive politics are definitely on the outs right now, but so was conservative laissez-faire capitalism fifteen years ago.
I'm happy to watch GOP triumphalism, because that's the feedstock for future Democratic success (as Democratic triumphalism was for the current GOP success). That's kinda how the Founders meant it to be.
More later.
A.L.
It seems to me that the Democrats do really need to decide what they BELIEVE in. Too often the discussions deal with "how to present themselves" so that they can be elected. Many times the efforts appear to be concentrating on how to avoid calling attention to things that people won't like, etc; so that they'll be able to get elected in spite of that.
This apparent attempt to "spin" everything is, I think, causing many people --- and not just conservatives, but many Democrats who've been with the party for 30 years or more --- to feel that the current leadership is much more interested in POWER for itself than in achieving particular goals for the country. I've been conservative/libertarian for years; BUT I used to be able to respect Democrats like Hubert Humphrey who stood up for their beliefs and didn't try to "repackage" them to fit the current poll.
When I debate with my Decomcratic friends now, even they get embarrassed when I ask, "so what are you suggesting as an alternative?" They have the problem because their party has spent its time saying that "Bush is wrong on a tax cut," for example; but hasn't offered any serious alternative to it.
Rather than trying to compromise and work out something more to their liking, they appear determined to spend all of their efforts blcoking everything Bush wants to do. I think that's bad for the country, both because negativism doesn't SOLVE problems, and because we'd all benefit from a serious debate.
A.L. says "I'm happy to watch GOP triumphalism, because that's the feedstock for future Democratic success (as Democratic triumphalism was for the current GOP success). That's kinda how the Founders meant it to be."
While its certainly how our nation's political system has worked for the last century or more, the "Founders" didn't intend it and it worked a bit differently for the first two or three generations. Depending on how you define "Founders", many of our early leaders were strongly against the notion of "party". ( And yet, many others of our early leaders were busy building their Party especially Federalists like Hamilton ). For the first couple of generations, the parties themselves evolved, adapted, sometimes died out and were born anew from ashes more than we've seen post Civil War.
Ralph:
"It seems to me that the Democrats do really need to decide what they BELIEVE in. Too often the discussions deal with "how to present themselves" so that they can be elected."
Abso-damn-lutely.
Everyone is talking about the Dems "coming up with policies that give them traction with voters"...how about coming up with policies that make sense?? The voters are pretty smart; if you give them something that they believe will work, you'll get traction.
Sheesh.
A.L.