I posted
earlier today about my frustration with a Dean For America/Pew Center survey that asked if the Democratic Party should "move left, move right, stay the same, or die off." My response was "None of the above."
We can't solve our problems by ideological repositioning. We need both the left and the center -- a broad coalition is the way to electoral victory. What needs to change is our leaders' willingness to stand up and fight for the Democratic values that all of us -- and indeed, the majority of Americans -- share.
I didn't invent this meme. I got it from a piece I read almost exactly two years ago on a site called The Waldman Report. The article is no longer at its original URL, but I found it reprinted at The Smirking Chimp.
It dates from just after the 2002 elections, but it's as true now as it was then. With apologies to the original author, I'm quoting a big chunk of it below, because I think it's vitally important:
Although most of the American public is no doubt barely aware, there is a furious debate gripping the world of political insiders, being played out in Congressional and interest group offices and on the pages and web sites of magazines like the New Republic, the American Prospect, Slate and Salon. The question consuming politicos is, should the Democrats move left or right? On one side are those who see leaders like Nancy Pelosi (whose first name now appears to be "San Francisco Liberal") as mired in the failures of the past, with an ideology out of touch with ordinary Americans. On the other are those who see the Democrats' problem as a failure to motivate their base by running on the bedrock beliefs that made them a majority party for decades.
But the real answer to the problems the Democrats face doesn't lie in moving the party to the left or the right. The party doesn't need to move anywhere. All it needs to do is stand up. ...
Even some Democrats are buying Karl Rove's argument that the election signaled some significant ideological shift among the electorate. Before pulling out of the race to become Minority Leader, Congressman Martin Frost said, "The country yesterday - or Tuesday - moved somewhat to the right." But the idea that Americans suddenly changed their fundamental outlook on issues in the last couple of weeks of the campaign is so absurd as to barely merit discussion. ...
The fact is, the Republican agenda is not particularly popular. To listen to those like the editors of the New Republic, who begged Democrats to cast off their "stultifying liberal orthodoxy," one would think that two weeks ago, Americans suddenly decided they wanted to overturn Roe v. Wade, drill for oil in every national park, gut environmental regulations, and give huge tax breaks to billionaires.
In fact, at this point in history the position held by most Democrats is more popular than the position held by most Republicans on nearly every national issue. The Republican party counts on ignorance and fosters confusion with friendly-sounding appeals ("compassionate conservatism") that make it hard to discern the differences between the parties. Making those differences clear is not always easy - but it can certainly be done.
A candidate from anywhere across the Democratic spectrum, from a conservative like Charles Stenholm (D-TX) to a liberal like Charles Rangel (D-NY) will usually find his positions more popular than those of his opponent. The only question is whether the voters know it. Republicans understood this all too well, which is why they worked so hard (with the help of friends like the pharmaceutical industry) to cloud the issue terrain and convince voters that they too desperately wanted a Medicare prescription drug benefit and were horrified at the thought of privatizing Social Security.
Every Democrat, regardless of which wing of the party he or she comes from, can adopt the same two-part strategy. Number one, they should stand up clearly and strongly for their positions. Note that the one candidate who wasn't hurt by a Republican attack on national security was Paul Wellstone. That's because he took a principled stand and everybody knew where he stood, so it was impossible to distort his position. Number two, Democrats should stop letting Republicans push them around.
The author goes on to recount the defeat of Senator Max Cleland -- and how it might have been prevented had Cleland been willing to hit back at Saxby Chambliss with commercials as tough as the ones Chambliss ran against him. The article concludes:
In the words of Sean Connery, they pull a knife, you pull a gun. Put another way (to paraphrase Michael Dukakis), it's not about ideology. It's about balls.
As they look to 2004, Democrats are worried. Should they pick a conservative like Joe Lieberman, or someone more liberal like John Kerry? Someone who can appeal to southerners, or someone who can excite African-Americans? Someone with foreign policy experience, or someone who is strong on domestic issues? But they're asking the wrong questions. What they should be looking for are leaders - regardless of whether they're liberal or centrist - who know what they believe and aren't afraid to say it. And who know how to throw a punch.
Copyright 2002 The Waldman Political Report
Folks, I suggest you read the whole article, then printing it out and taping it to your wall. This is how we take our country back.
I am a Stand-Up Democrat!