The What-Went-Wrong Party
That's what Dan Balz thinks the Democratic Party is these days. I think he's made a strong case
in his latest article.
I'd further suggest that, despite all the great Dean declarations that Americans overwhelmingly want to throw the bums out, that doesn't get beyond the theory stage. They'd support change that makes sense but they don't see what the Democrats are offering as making sense.
What this comes down to is that Democrats think that it's all about packaging, that substance doesn't play a part in it. That's been the Democratic perspective for a very long time.
The lesson that Democrats don't get is that government solutions aren't as appealing as it once was. The government that people want today is a government that's fast and responsive to their needs, not responsive to special interest groups. Democrats are the party that fights for the status quo. Simply put, that isn't appealing to people, regardless of the packaging.
Posted Sunday, June 11, 2006 9:48 PM
May 2006 Posts
No comments.
The Democrats have become too good at losing. Even now, with the Republicans looking bruised and beatable as the midterm elections approach, the first signs of another period of Democratic discontent are emerging. Memories of past disappointments remain fresh, heightened by last week's Republican victory in a special House election in California. Public squabbles about strategy underscore internal unease. Nervous whispers follow brave talk about November.That's where the rub lies. While people don't approve of the job President Bush is doing, it isn't because they're suddenly finding credence in Democrats' policies on the biggest issue facing this country. The truth is that, while immigration is the hot topic in Washington, the unspoken and underlying issue with the American people is still the GWOT. And people don't take Democrats seriously on that issue.
All that is nothing compared with what could come if the worst happens in this fall's congressional elections: The Democrats will be plunged into another round of recriminations bordering on therapy. If you doubt any of this, if you believe this time will be different, take a look at what happened after 1984. And 1988. 1994. 2000. 2002. 2004. A cottage industry now exists to help them through their post-election depression. All the participants know their parts.
The truth is that Democrats are being pushed further left than the American public is willing to go. They don't have a coherent message that appeals beyond specific focus groups. I've been watching politics for over 30 years and that's simply the nature of being a Democrat. The only thing that unites them is a distrust of George Bush. The problem with that is that George Bush isn't on the ballot this fall. Big issues are.
I'd further suggest that, despite all the great Dean declarations that Americans overwhelmingly want to throw the bums out, that doesn't get beyond the theory stage. They'd support change that makes sense but they don't see what the Democrats are offering as making sense.
Twenty years later, even before losing to President Bush in 2004, Democrats were turning to Berkeley scholar and linguist George Lakoff for similar packaging advice; he offered them such concepts as "frames," "framing" and "branding" in their wars with the Republicans. "If you're a Democrat, you want to really change the frame," Lakoff told the liberal Web site AlterNet.org. "The problem is that there is no existing frame out there. You have to create it."Lakoff's advice is the last thing that they should be worrying about. Framing things means nothing if it isn't coherent and defensible. Right now, people like Jane Harman are starting to sound like John Murtha. And Murtha is as incoherent as any well-known Democratic politician. Until now, Harman sounded like a sane Democratic politician on the GWOT. On this morning's FNS, she did her Murtha immitation, saying that the "president needs to fire Rumsfeld" and chart a new course for Iraq, starting with pulling our troops out of Iraq ASAP. I don't care how you "frame the issue" if that's the policy.
What this comes down to is that Democrats think that it's all about packaging, that substance doesn't play a part in it. That's been the Democratic perspective for a very long time.
In 1985, shortly after Ronald Reagan's reelection landslide, House Democrats retreated to the Greenbrier resort in West Virginia to lick their wounds. Richard A. Gephardt, then the leader of the House Democratic caucus, told reporters that weekend, "We're not soul-searching and we're not in the wilderness and we're not without ideas." Ten years later, when he had to hand over the gavel to newly sworn-in Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA), none of the above was true.The reality is that the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, (D-NY), had it right in 1979 when he said that the Democratic Party had stopped being the party of ideas and that Republicans were the new party of ideas. The 'Gingrich Revolution' was simply the manifestation of that final breakthrough.
The lesson that Democrats don't get is that government solutions aren't as appealing as it once was. The government that people want today is a government that's fast and responsive to their needs, not responsive to special interest groups. Democrats are the party that fights for the status quo. Simply put, that isn't appealing to people, regardless of the packaging.
Posted Sunday, June 11, 2006 9:48 PM
May 2006 Posts
No comments.
