The Vision Thing

President George H.W. Bush invented that phrase during the 92 campaign but it's today's Democrats that suffer from that dreaded disease, this NY Times article notwithstanding. Here's a sampling of this article's idea of the Democrats' vision:

"What the Democrats still don't have is a philosophy, a big idea that unites their proposals and converts them from a hodgepodge of narrow and specific fixes into a vision for society," Michael Tomasky, editor of the liberal journal The American Prospect, wrote in a much-discussed essay in the May issue.

A broader vision, many of these analysts say, will help the Democratic Party counter the charge, so often advanced by Republicans, that the Democrats are merely a collection of interest groups, labor, civil rights, abortion rights and the like, each consumed with their own agenda , rather than the nation's. John Podesta, who heads a center-left research group, the Center for American Progress, says an appeal to the common good "gets away from what we've sort of gotten used to in the last couple cycles, a pollster-driven niche idea framing, toward a larger vision of where you want to take the country."

The idea that all of these groups aren't thinking about each other isn't surprising. It's typical, disjointed, dysfunctional and incoherent. Democrats haven't thought in traditional terms in ages. They aren't liberals; they're progressives. And progressives think so far outside the box that the average voter questions whether they're from the same planet.

Another problem outlined in this article is that Democrats use nice-sounding, pollster-tested words without really saying anything. After you look at the logic, you see this isn't coherent logic.

Democrats and progressive intellectuals have a history of debating philosophies and world views. Sometimes those debates result in a consensus and even a winning campaign , like Mr. Clinton's; sometimes the results are irrelevant in the rush of real-world campaigning.

This discussion, still early, is bubbling up in journals like The American Prospect ; research organizations like the Center for American Progress, The Third Way and the Democratic Leadership Council; a wave of new books; and, especially, among bloggers who are demanding that the party become more assertive in fighting for what it believes in.

That they need discussions that are still "bubbling up" says almost everything. That "sometimes those debates result in a consensus and even a winning campaign" says the rest. They don't win because they aren't coherent and they aren't coherent because they're so self-focused. The last thing I'd call them is focused on "the greater good."

This discussion of first principles and big goals marks a psychological shift for many in the party; a frequent theme is that Democrats must stop being afraid, stop worrying that their core beliefs are out of step with the times, stop ceding so much ground to the conservatives.

That's the first thing they should be worried about. Their "core beliefs" are "out of step" with America. A huge wing of the Democratic Party is pacifist. That won't sell in wartime, especially when people hear John Murtha talking about "immediate redeployment", John Kerry and Barb Boxer demanding timelines for American troop withdrawals and Howard Dean telling a San Antonio radio station that "we can't win" in Iraq.

It's hard selling their message to mainstream America when we hear about the 9th Circuit ruling that "under God" shouldn't be part of the Pledge of Allegiance or when justices in Massachusetts mandate gay marriage or when Cindy Sheehan talks about getting Israel "out of Palestine." People know that that's whacked thinking and don't want that type of person representing them in Washington.

William Kristol, a leading conservative thinker and editor of The Weekly Standard, counters that parties are ultimately defined not by big visions from intellectuals but by real positions on real issues. "Foreign policy is critical," said Mr. Kristol, whose magazine was considered an important influence on the Bush administration's foreign policy. "Do they share a basic understanding that there is a global war on terror, and Iran is a threat that has to be dealt with? Is the next Democratic presidential nominee going to raise taxes or not?" He added, "It needs to be brought down to earth."

The answer is "No, they don't." They don't know that. At most, they'll give it limited lip service. Case closed. Until national security becomes the centerpiece of their vision, the voters won't give them control of any part of the government.

---

Posted Tuesday, May 9, 2006 7:45 PM

No comments.