Josh Marshall makes a good point, a point I've been thinking about for some
time but haven't been able to put into words: the main problem with the
Democrats is that they have developed a reflexive habit of letting politics
dictate policy.
The problem Democrats have is not bad tactics or bad strategies or poor
framing. The problem is an over-reliance, even an addiction, to tactics and
strategies.
For years I've argued that the Democrats' problem on national security
issues is not so much that they aren't 'tough enough' or that they lack new
ideas. The problem is a now-deeply-ingrained habit of approaching national
security issues not so much as policy questions to be wrestled with but as a
political problem to be dealt with and moved on from.
That has a host of damaging consequences, the most serious of which is
that if you chart your policy course so as to avoid political damage, always
casting about for the sweet spot of political safety, you tend to lack any
greater programmatic consistency. And that tells voters (as it probably
should) that you're inconstant and unserious. It also muddles effective
communication by confusing the communicators themselves about just what it
is they are trying to say or accomplish.
What the last year has taught me -- both in good ways and bad -- is that
this malady isn't limited to the national security domain but applies to
Democrats pretty much across the board.
Josh has some advice on how Democrats can overcome their political strategy
cravings (using Social Security as an example):
Here's what I propose whenever Democrats have a question about just what
stance to take on the Social Security debate.
One question ...
What is the actual policy outcome that would be most preferable
on Social Security (to protect, preserve or augment it -- whatever) and how
important is it that it take place in this Congress?
That's the first, second and third question.
That answer should drive everything else.
I could add to this, but it would just be fluffing. Go read the whole thing
and absorb it.
I'm as big a fan of framing as anyone, but even framing is just another
example of "tactics and strategy". It is the training wheels for the new
Democratic movement. It is not the movement itself. I'm still interested in it,
but I need to move beyond it.
update: If I can allow myself a little bit of meta I'd like to point out the irony
that
Josh Marshall's post about Democrats being addicted to strategy and tactics
at the expense of real policy is itself an excellent use of metaphorical framing
(Democrats are Addicts) to make a point that snide dismissals of framing has
not: that framing is not enough.