Posted on 12/11/2004 5:38:57 PM PST by Libloather
Dems Altering Style, Not Substance
Terence Samuel
Dec. 9, 2004
As has been authoritatively reported, there is an unparalleled amount of angst coursing through Democratic veins these days, both in Washington and around the country, about what the party needs to do to reverse its recent string of defeats.
"Change" seems to be the consensus answer -- but that's where the consensus begins and ends. The increasingly heated debate over who should be the next chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and how he or she should be chosen is only the most dramatic feature of the agonized self-examination. But Democrats are testifying everywhere, from Capitol Hill to Washington barstools to the op-ed pages of "The New York Times" and, heaven forfend, "The Wall Street Journal."
They are holding forums and asking questions, trenchant ones like: Is liberalism dead? Is Howard Dean crazy? Where can we find the next James Carville or Paul Begala (or, better still, the next Newt Gingrich or Karl Rove)?
There are calls for defiance in the face of defeat -- or concessions in the face of reality.
House Democrats this week got a lecture on how to frame the issues in the big privatization fight that's on deck. They intend to position themselves as protectors of Social Security and accuse the administration of trying to privatize the retirement program simply as a prelude to eliminating it. Their metaphor coach suggested that they talk about the deficit as the "baby tax," as it'll be up to today's kids to pay it off later.
One priority is this toning of the message, a nail here and a screw there.
But a consistent undercurrent in all the discussion is the assumption that what ails the party is not its ideas or its values but an inability to communicate those ideas effectively or to compete with the high-powered GOP message machine. And despite all the calls for change, it appears that the changes desired are small ones indeed, having to do more with style and strategy rather than with substance or ideas. Democrats talked about the need to communicate better, to talk more about values and faith, to convince more people that Democrats are tough on terrorists, and to be more aggressive. "It's not like we are going to change our core values," remarked one Hill Democrat.
That's both the good news and the bad. Steadfastness does have political currency, but it's a little suspect when you're on a losing streak.
The obvious advantage to that approach is that it may be based on a set of principled positions, inoculating Democrats from charges of flip-flopping. An equally obvious disadvantage, however, is that more than anything, Democrats need to dazzle voters with at least one new idea that will force them to reconsider, or maybe clarify, what it means to be a Democrat.
"A minority party can only become a majority party by surprising people enough to realize that it is better than they thought," says Bruce Reed, president of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC). "The last two campaigns have been short on such shock therapy. Next time we have to surprise people by becoming an insurgent reform party again, as we did in '92."
If that's happening, it'll come as a surprise to a lot of people. And while there has been relatively little finger-pointing and public recrimination among Democrats after the election-day debacle, there are still serious intraparty questions about whose party it is and who's to blame for the recent losses:
John Kerry?
Howard Dean?
George McGovern?
Dean's decision to seek the chairmanship of the DNC has set off another round of rancor about what kind of face the party needs. Reed, writing in "The Wall Street Journal" with DLC founder Al From, says Democrats "need to come to terms with the main reason we lost in the red states: Too many Americans doubt whether Democrats will be tough enough in the war on terror... We need to be the party of Harry Truman and John Kennedy, not Michael Moore."
And "The New Republic" which supported the war in Iraq and then recanted after things went south, has come out forcefully against Dean.
"The single greatest challenge facing the Democratic Party is its dire need to reestablish its credibility on national security," the magazine's editors believe. "Reestablishing this credibility does not mean embracing [George W.] Bush. It means forcefully elucidating alternatives. Dean has shown little interest in doing so, and, during the primary, his instincts led him to cater to the antiwar movement on the party's left."
As party bosses meet in Orlando, Florida, this weekend to begin the process of choosing a new party leader, the anxiety over the choice was already roiling many loyalists. Operative Howard Wolfson suggests that the party just throw open the process to Democrats everywhere, and not just members of the DNC.
He wrote in "The New York Times": "Fifty-seven million Americans voted for John Kerry last month and more than 2.7 million Democrats contributed to the party during this last campaign... Yet only a tiny fraction of Democrats will determine our party's new leader... My proposal is simple. Permit anyone who has voted in a Democratic primary or participated in a caucus and has contributed in some way to the party -- either financially or through volunteering -- to vote for the next leader via mail or Internet."
But more important than who the Democrats want to head their party is what they want that party to be about. And "change" is not enough of an answer.
Terence Samuel is the chief congressional correspondent for "U.S. News & World Report." His column about politics appears each week in the Prospect's online edition.
And the one question that still remains unanswered - what are RAT core values? Even they don't know...
It's a fight between the Michael Moore wing of the party versus the Bill Clinton wing.
They're a bunch of fanatics.
"They've," rather.
Between those who cover up their crimes and those who are proud of them.
Looks like the DNC is a case study of "An open mind is an empty mind."
Basically. The Clinton wing understands they need to disguise who they really are whereas the Moore wing is convinced America will love outright socialists like them.
They need to embrace the homosexuals more closely, and to make it clear that those who don't embrace the gays are motivated primarily by hate. They also need to be more forceful in pointing out the shortcomings of Clarence Thomas' writing, and the gross stupidity of Jemimaleeza Rice. They also need to keep lying, because it fools the stupid masses.
"This is a battle for the soul of the Democrat Party", but ...
Oh, well, you know.
How can 57 million people be so stupid?
Yeah we all know the punchline.
This bunch of horse muffins going on over the vote in Ohio was planned long before Nov 2nd.
The short answer is: YES. The long answer is he is crazier than a loon.
I first met Howard in 1967 when we were both soon-to-be freshmen in the Yale Class of 1971. He then knew everything -- and knew no one else knew anything at all. If that is not the sign of a demented individual, what is.
And remember he suffers from deanmentia, a mental defect brought on by political stress, often accompanied by loud screaming and hawwing like an ass. The condition deanmentia is apparently similar to Tourette's Syndrome in which stress causes individuals to utter socially inappropriate words or phrases.
It's just more of "How can we fool 'em next time."
I was wondering the same thing. No matter who it was running to be top Rat, I never once heard what the core values of RATS were. None of them had a platform on how they would run the country. Not one of them could say how they would protect it other than to leave that up to our enemies and competing countries, they all prommised to raise taxes and spend. Spend on what? At least with Bush, we know what he's spending on. He has a "plan" unlike Kerry, who throughout his campaign kept talking about his plan like it was some magic orb floating just behind the curtain. Bush's plan at least has a form, a better military, better national security, reformed social security, a drug plan, education, and NO new taxes! Spending yes, but arguably spending on what needed to be spent on. Maybe that ticks off the RATS most of all. Bush has spent, and spent so much that if by chance the RATS ever did get into power in 08, they would have nothing to spend, so they would sit in the whitehouse for a whole term doing the second thing they do best... nothing.
The core value seems to be that if they click their heels three times hard enough, they'll win. Values, hypothetical "I have plans!" be damned, they just wanna win back the White House, Senate and House. That's some really nice real estate, y'know, and ownership is everything, even if you don't know what you're going to do with it.
That "Baby Tax" thing is an real loser! It reminded me immediately of their nasty evil stance on legal Baby Murder.
The dems will never believe that we are in a new era where people "connect the dots" (politically speaking). They can't even utter the word "baby". The whole world knows how much they care about the future of the babies. The "baby" should be so lucky to live to pay a tax someday.
Then they would be the Party of 50 years ago. The party Reagan said left him. I don't see that happening until the majority of today's anti-America anti-God rats are unable to vote.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.