Greg Sargent's good idea.
Reid: [to Howard Dean and Joe Lieberman] By fighting publicly over Iraq right now, you guys are giving the press exactly the script they want to read from: “Democrats in Disarray.” When Republicans disagree, the script is “Big tent GOP.” Democratic infighting, though, is always “disarray.” So we need to give them a new script on Iraq -- now.
Lieberman and Dean: What is it?
Reid: It’s gonna be, “Democrats are the party of debate, discussion, and problem solving, and Republicans are the party of denial.”
Greg Sargant is really on to something with this. The politics of debate, of discussion, of the search for solutions is an enormously appealing concept, all Lincoln-Douglas, all reality-based. In the Democrats' case it's also roughly true. I don't think Dean or Lieberman, acting as individuals (Dean as self-actualizing narcissist; Lieberman as self-serving maverick-hawk) are exactly the problem Sargant argues they are in his parody. This particular play is more than the sum of its actors -- if Dean and Pelosi just hinted discreetly at their views on the hopelessness of the war effort in its current form, the narrative line would still be "disarray", but disarray combined with the familiar trope about "a party afraid to speak its mind" or "a party with no message." But since the Dems are never going to all agree with each other on Iraq (or free trade or how to run a national health care plan), there's no excuse for not trying to make their lack of agreement a virtue: "X is entitled to his opinion; "there are no easy answers, but all Democrats are working toward solutions." This is especially true since the Dems have been offering an array of serious opinions and proposals on Iraq. And better that than being mute.
I think a good (better than "together we can do better") general theme/slogan for the Dems in 2006 would be "Restoring the Balance". The promise to restore civility to Washington worked for Bush in 2000; the promise to restore respect for genuine debate in the face of Republican hackery and divisiveness could work for the Dems in 2006 (and just think how great Robert Byrd would be in the ads. "I remember when Tip O'Neill and Ronald Reagan would meet for cocktails at the Palm... a better time, when we respected one another...")
Make disagreement a virtue. Make healthy debate the centerpiece of what Democrats are for. Restore the balance.
That's all my advice for the day.
Update: Backlogged blog-reading: Marc Schmidt already made this point better than me (which isn't surprising since Schmidt makes points better than everyone.)
Lieberman and Dean: What is it?
Reid: It’s gonna be, “Democrats are the party of debate, discussion, and problem solving, and Republicans are the party of denial.”
Greg Sargant is really on to something with this. The politics of debate, of discussion, of the search for solutions is an enormously appealing concept, all Lincoln-Douglas, all reality-based. In the Democrats' case it's also roughly true. I don't think Dean or Lieberman, acting as individuals (Dean as self-actualizing narcissist; Lieberman as self-serving maverick-hawk) are exactly the problem Sargant argues they are in his parody. This particular play is more than the sum of its actors -- if Dean and Pelosi just hinted discreetly at their views on the hopelessness of the war effort in its current form, the narrative line would still be "disarray", but disarray combined with the familiar trope about "a party afraid to speak its mind" or "a party with no message." But since the Dems are never going to all agree with each other on Iraq (or free trade or how to run a national health care plan), there's no excuse for not trying to make their lack of agreement a virtue: "X is entitled to his opinion; "there are no easy answers, but all Democrats are working toward solutions." This is especially true since the Dems have been offering an array of serious opinions and proposals on Iraq. And better that than being mute.
I think a good (better than "together we can do better") general theme/slogan for the Dems in 2006 would be "Restoring the Balance". The promise to restore civility to Washington worked for Bush in 2000; the promise to restore respect for genuine debate in the face of Republican hackery and divisiveness could work for the Dems in 2006 (and just think how great Robert Byrd would be in the ads. "I remember when Tip O'Neill and Ronald Reagan would meet for cocktails at the Palm... a better time, when we respected one another...")
Make disagreement a virtue. Make healthy debate the centerpiece of what Democrats are for. Restore the balance.
That's all my advice for the day.
Update: Backlogged blog-reading: Marc Schmidt already made this point better than me (which isn't surprising since Schmidt makes points better than everyone.)
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home