We Dems had prevailed in public opinion surrounding the thorny issues embedded in the Terri Schiavo tragedy. We had won, big time. Tom Delay was demonized and marginalized. The religious right looked cultish and wacko; the Bush boys looked both opportunistic and weak. Their focus-grouped anti-Dem theme, the "Culture of Death," fell flat. We had those fuckers on the run, but Howard Dean pissed it all away.
Politus does have it right in that the Democrats "won" on the Schiavo issue, but that was only by default. If the strategy to get "those fuckers on the run" was predicated on voting with said fuckers, mission accomplished. The Democrats "won" on the Schiavo issue solely because the Republicans blew themselves up. If hiding or voting with the Republicans (which each and every Senate Democrat did) is putting someone "on the run", then someone redfined the term when I was drunk in the corner.
The only thing the Democrats accomplished in the whole sorry saga of Terri Schiavo is to appear even more pathetic, weak and stupid than they previously did. Leave it to the Democrats to be given the gift of a winning issue and fuck it up.
Frankly, I can't wait to see tape of Dean's first Town Hall where he brings up Terri. Seeing his face when a non-screened questioner asks, "Well, didn't
every single member of your Senate caucus vote with the Republicans?" will be priceless. Then Dean might just realize what an amateur he truly he is. Maybe he'll quit politics, maybe he'll commit suicide in public. Whatever the outcome, I can't imagine that even HE could bear that shame.
But I do agree with Politus on part of his post,
The optics on this really suck. Howard Dean not only announced that the Democratic Party was going to “use” a dead woman for political purposes; he did it in front of a large group of gays and lesbians. In West Hollywood. How many negative stereotypes could dumb-fuck Howie cram into this one blunder?
The Democratic Party as the “Culture of Death” is now reborn. Bill Frist’s big jihad next week is likely to be bristling with images of Howie the screamer calling for euthanasia and abortion in front of homosexuals in Tinsel Town. Blend in a dose of anti-gay marriage hysteria, and this is a perfect, fat, greasy hanging curveball for the wingnuts, and they will whack it out of the park.
In short, the Democrats are going to take a winning issue and manage to lose with it.
PART TWO: "IT'S A TOWN FULL OF LOSERS AND I'M PULLING OUT OF HERE TO WIN"In a purely political sense, Americans are the most deeply weird people in the democratic West. Virtually everything on a policy basis is viewed through a "values" -that is to say, religious - prism. No other Western democracy does that. Tony Blair has largely hidden his religious faith, and Spain, the most Catholic of the G8 is well on its way to legalizing same sex marriage. Solely on the basis of faith in politics, the United States has more in common with Iran than it does, say, England.
Matt Bai has a very
intersting article in this week's
New York Times Magazine regarding the opportunities this phenomenon provides the Democrats.
Before Schiavo ever became the story of the moment, Democrats were wrestling over the meaning of moral values, with about as much clarity as you might expect from a bunch of cable-TV pundits debating superstring theory. There are two basic arguments being put forward by national Democrats on how to change their image, and at a breakfast for Democratic officials in Washington last month, I heard two of the party's more serious thinkers lay them out. The first speaker, Harold Ford, the young representative from Tennessee, argued that Democrats needed to speak the same spiritual language as Republicans if they didn't want to continue to be seen as godless elitists. "We can separate church and state," Ford said in a preacherly cadence, "but, by golly, we ought to be able to say that our spirit, our faith and our morals influence somewhat how we treat people and how we shape laws and how we implement policy." After Ford sat down, Howard Dean, the party's new chairman, counseled that if Democrats really wanted to win back churchgoers, they had to make the case that traditionally liberal programs like health care and community-development block grants were moral values, too. "I am tired of having decent Americans who don't happen to wear their religious beliefs on their sleeves called immoral," Dean said.
While I've never heard Howard Dean called a "serious thinker" before, both he and Representative Ford have a point.
I haven't seen any evidence of this, but I'm certain that the issues Dean cited could be positively focus-grouped successfully as "moral issues", in a non-specific "love thy neighbor" kind of way. The message could well work, given the right messenger. Harold Ford, an exceptionally gifted speaker, could pull it off. Howard Dean, who is very probably be mentally ill, cannot.
The problem with Mr. Bai's theory is that it is extremely narrow. As the Republicans increasingly become populist messengers of Big Government, the Democrats have a fantastic opportunity. However, it is very likely that they'll pull the "come to Jesus" rabbit out their hats and no one will buy it.
A Democratic embracement of "values" is going to have to come within a larger package. As the Republicans abandon the ground that put them in power, the Democrats will have to claim it. This has begun with the claim that they are the party of "fiscal responsibility." Of all the things that President Bush can be called, "fiscally responsible" isn't one of them.
For the last two years, Democrats have compared President Clinton's surplus to President Bush's deficit. That the surplus was a figment of everyone's imagination matters not. Bush did campaign on a surplus in 2000 and now it is gone. Republicans point out that the surplus was the first casualty in the War on Terror, which is an obvious lie. But Democrats roll over in the face of the lie for fear that they will be branded "unpatriotic." What is almost never pointed out is that the TRILLION-dollar tax cut created almost two thirds of the deficit. The prescription drug benefit, which has yet to even take effect, costs almost twice as much as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan combined! The deficit is NOT due to National Security spending. It is due to electioneering giveaways.
Of course, the Democrats are too stupid and weak to point this out in any meaningful way.
But the opportunity is there for the Democrats to become the party of "smaller, smarter government." All it would take is a speaker like Representative Ford to stand up and say, "We are the party of moral values. These values do not include giving tax breaks to the very rich as the middle class struggles to make ends meet. These values do not include exploiting or demonizing the weakest among us for political gain. These values do not include mortaging the future of our children and grandchildren for today's benefit." It could be a compelling message given the right messenger.
For such a message to mean anything at all would require the Democrats to rethink their strategic positioning. For most of the last forty years, they have been an almost entirely reactive party, while the Republicans have been proactive. Like them or not, the Republicans actually propose things. The Democrats have existed only to decry Republican proposals. Notice how well this has worked for the Democrats in the last ten election cycles?
But as the Republicans move ever further toward traditional populism, the Democrats have the opportunity to move toward a moderate conservative center. Just as President Clinton did, the national party could co-opt the traditionally popular positions that the Republicans have abdicated. These would include balanced budgets, state's rights, and allowing private citizens to live their personal lives as free from federal interference as much as possible.
What Dean and Ford are proposing is a good start, but outside of a larger repositioning, it will be ineffective. If Democrats stand up and say "We love Jesus, too" in isolation from larger reforms, they will look like opportunistic fools. As the Republicans move away from their traditional strengths to accommodate a narrow, yet vocal, element of their base, the Democrats are being presented with their greatest opportunity in a generation.
Will they take advantage of it? I doubt it. These are long term answers, and will take several election cycles to fully implement. This is not a quick fix, and the recent history of the party indicates that this is all they're interested in. While the "rebranding" of their ideology is a good start, without actual policy proposals to back them up, it is hollow rhetoric at best. I believe that the message will tested in next year's elections, not get any positive results, and be abandoned. This will be an enormous strategic mistake.
Any failure to pick up seats next year will be due to the map, the seats that are up and where they are located. The Republicans are likely to pick up at least two senate seats next year, and perhaps as many as four. '06 will be determined more by geography and political trending more than anything else. The Democrats should write the senate off for next year right now.
As has been true with every long term opportunity presented the Democrats in the last two generations, it will not be exploited. Instead, the Democrats will remain mired in the ideology of the 1930's. And that it is what will finally doom them as a national party.
Permalink
