"Leadership does not always wear the harness of compromise. Once and again one of those great influences which we call a Cause arises in the midst of a nation. Men of strenuous minds and high ideals come forward.... The attacks they sustain are more cruel than the collision of arms.... Friends desert and despise them.... They stand alone and oftentimes are made bitter by their isolation.... They are doing nothing less than defy public opinion, and shall they convert it by blows. Yes."
- Woodrow Wilson "Leaders of Men, An Address" (June 17, 1890)
Yesterday's diary on Harry Reid has launched what I think has been a very positive discussion about what we (the grassroots, netroots and blogosphere) are seeking from our Democratic leadership.
Taking a step back from the question of how Senator Reid is performing as a Minority Leader and evaluating what we desire in our leaders will hopefully provide a construct under which we can judge not just Reid, but Pelosi and the candidates running for Chair of the DNC. At this juncture in our Party's history I believe it is imperative for Democrats to have this discussion.
While the overwhelming number of recommendations for yesterday's dairy speak to it's merit, some people assumed some things about me that (while irrelevant to the debate) seem to also speak towards what I believe to be Democrats' crisis in wanting to appear moderate at the expense of leadership. I believe this to be a false dichotomy and fundamentally flawed proposition. I am a moderate and I am probably more moderate than most of the posters here. When I have been involved in Democratic primary campaigns, I have seemed to always end up on the side of the moderate (even though that isn't why I supported them). When you consider that many of these primaries have been in the red state of Montana you'll see that I'm not some flaming liberal one toke shy of joining the Green Party. But as a moderate Democrat I support the Party in spite of it's moderation, not because of it.
When I examine politicians I look first to their leadership qualities. Only after passing this primia facia test do I look at their policy positions. I do not believe I am alone in this reasoning.
First and foremost, I want politicians I can respect. This is why the flip-flopping charge against Kerry was so powerful. A candidate who has strong beliefs and stands up for them as a leader is a known creature. A politician who continually changes stances for political purposes is an unknown...and dangerous.
The political center isn't looking for people to mimic their political beliefs because more often than not, they have little political understanding. These are the people who couldn't decide between Bush and Kerry until October. In the end they didn't decide on issues, they decided that Bush was strong and Kerry was weak; that Bush was a leader and Kerry flip-flopped. Attempting to follow the swing voters creates a situation where the swing voters can not follow us. That goes to the crux of my argument against the recent history of the Democratic Party. Our leadership seems so consumed with attempting to be popular that they forget why they want to be popular. Seeking to be moderate has not worked to engender support from the moderates, it fact it has been counter-productive. By definition, the swing voters aren't closely following political issues. Many swing voters are the type of indecisive people that you dread being stuck behind in line. Their indecisiveness is all the more reason to earn their respect through bold leadership, they desperately need to follow somebody.
This is why I support bold leadership and cringe when I hear our senate leadership declare that the lesson of our losses is that we need to move to the center. The lesson is that we need to lead. This has been empirically proven in recent elections. This is how the GOP advanced from near collapse in 1992 to near dominance in 2004. They are not in control because they are moderate, they are in control because they are willing to lead and they have the appetite to succeed.
If the GOP fights to move further to the right and Democrats seek to move further to the right, which way will we go? In negotiations you begin at a position that will achieve the end result you seek. If we begin by seeking a position to the right of our current situation then we have already lost, the only question is to what extent.
I firmly believe that Democrats can do better. I believe we must do better. I don't believe we should measure our leaders against their predecessors, I believe we should evaluate them based on whether on not they are doing enough. I don't want Reid to do better than Daschle, I want him to do enough. I don't want the next DNC Chair to do better than McAliffe, I want her to do enough. If attempting not to lose hasn't worked, maybe it is time for us to fight to win. Maybe Democrats need offense as much as defense, especially because we are in the minority.
I am a Reform Democrat because I believe we need to reform our Party to create a modern organization that people will respect and follow.
I hope people will list what they seek in a leader. I would like to leave you thinking about our DNC Chair race with another quote from Woodrow Wilson, this was from an address to the YMCA on October 24, 1914:
Be militant! Be an organization that is going to do things! If you can find older men who will give you countenance and acceptable leadership, follow them; but if you cannot, organize separately and dispense with them. There are only two sorts of men to be associated with when something is to be done: Those are young men and men who never grow old.
If we don't believe in learning from our mistakes, maybe we should Draft Gray Davis for DNC Chair.