Today's
Roll Call contained an article on the Democratic "strategy" being rolled out earlier than originally planned in order to accomodate recent Republican incompetence.
Key Democratic sources say Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and other House leaders are putting the finishing touches on what arguably will be Democrats most detailed "positive" election-year agenda since the party lost power more than a decade ago. Pelosi has been coordinating with Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), key Democratic strategists, advisers and outside interest groups on the policy platform as well as the party's broader 2006 message.
It is said to include some of the things that Rahm Emmanuel hinted at on the Sunday talk shows, including energy independence, fully funding college education, saving entitlement programs, increased ethical standards, and the cause that is dearest to my heart, affordable health care for all Americans.
This is good news, right? Well, the way I see it, that depends on you. Read on....
From Roll Call:
A Democratic strategist said given the party's history, it remains to be seen whether they can find a winning message and sell it to voters. This source pointed to Pelosi's long-crafted 2004 message document, called the "New Partnership for America's Future," that never took hold.
"Just because you say something in Washington doesn't mean that it will go anywhere," the strategist said. "The jury is still out on whether a large group of Members will buy into it and actually speak to it and whether it is used race by race, and district by district in America."
But Democratic leaders are confident this election will be different, and say 2006 presents the perfect opportunity for the party to break through, given that the presidency is not at stake and the focus will be on House and Senate contests. Pelosi last week highlighted many of the forthcoming agenda items that Democrats will be talking about, including health insurance for all Americans and energy independence.
What I find especially interesting about this strategist's comment is its timing given the following article that appeared in The Washington Post today:
Suddenly, Democrats are optimistic about their political future. But should they be? Back in 1994, when the Republicans took over Congress, not every Republican agreed with every piece of the revolutionary agenda laid out by Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.). The party was riven then with ideological divides just as it is now. But the GOP was able to unite for the sake of political victory around a handful of leaders with a clear, concise vision for the future.
...snip....
Rep. Jane Harman, a moderate Democrat from California, who is a member of that group, has started a new political action committee, SecureUS, to help her party craft a strong, clear message on national security.
"The failure of Democrats to articulate a compelling message and policy position on national security issues spelled doom for our party during the last election cycle," Harman said.
But some on the left are talking about those efforts in the sort of hot rhetoric typically reserved for the other party.
"The fact is, Harman's efforts will likely be nothing but another veiled attempt by the insulated Democratic 'strategic class' in Washington to continue perpetuating the worst right-wing lies about progressives on foreign policy," wrote David Sirota, a former Capitol Hill staffer who writes a blog popular among the left.
....snip....
There are Democrats who argue that their party is a better place because it allows the sort of dissent, free-thinking and big-tent activism that is so often squashed in the Republican Party. The party doesn't need to walk lock step on Iraq or any other issue, this arguments goes.
And it is a fine argument ... for a debating society. Ultimately, voters will want to know that the party has what it takes to protect the nation. And they'll expect solid, concrete answers and solutions.
(I personally believe in the big tent argument. However, it should be readily admitted that I also was an active member of my college debating society.)
Well, I think this is a fascinating question. If Congressional Democrats came out with their own Contract for America tomorrow, would you bite? And by bite, I mean unite around it and ignore the parts that weren't mentioned but should've been, or the parts that seem a bit weak to you, and aren't exactly what you want to hear....are Democrats capable of uniting around a message? Can we drink even a sip of Kool-Aid to help us win an election, or is it so contrary to our nature that given our own Contract with America, we will dissect it until it has no life left, and then hold it up as a lifeless document whenever Republicans ask us what our grand plan is?
Because it can't really be denied that if we tear into said document with all our usual gusto, it will be pretty meaningless in future conversation. If we don't believe it in ourselves, I simply do not see how we can convince others to believe in it. But what is our threshold for believing? The irony of this is overwhelming, that the true problem with national unity might lie in our inability to convince liberals, the purported young, doe-eyed dreamers yearning for an impossibly rainbow future, to stop being so damn cynical and jaded. But I gotta kinda conceed the point that it is a legitimate concern. What if a platform was released tomorrow that didn't contain a call for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq? Well, I'd imagine you'd lose half of this community. What if it did? Well, you'd probably lose the other half, including me. And if it charted a middle road between the two? Well, I think we'd be kidding ourselves if we didn't admit that it would be attacked as weak-willed crap that refused to take a stand.
So, what is the solution for this? How do we get on the same page? How do we put aside our doubts and despair to embrace a document that is, in all honestly, thin on some areas, weak on others, and over-emphasizing issue A when it ought concentrate on the vastly more important issue B?
Well, first, in my view, is the reconcilliation between the beltway and the netroots. I think the leaders on the web have to agree to not just swallow like cough medicine, but promote and laud said document. I'm not saying that they should accept whatever is thrown at them. Washington has a responsibility to make it somewhat palatable, but at the end of the day, I think it is time to step up and be the left-wing noise machine. Isn't that the dream, in a way? Isn't that what we've been trying to create? That's the most important aspect of getting everybody to give said plan the benefit of the doubt.
Then, there's the question of timing and promotion. I personally still think it would be better to wait until 2006, though I understand the desire to speed the timetable given the current climate. But, should the document drop, we must not let it fall between the cracks while diligently reporting each scandle that befalls the administration. We need to promote it to our fullest extent in a relentless matter. Long after it has ceased to be new and interesting and worthy of a "BREAKING" headline.
Lastly, we should encourage challengers in various districts around the country that are receiving netroot support to embrace and promote the document themselves, and align themselves with the national plan. To a certain extent, campaigns can't be run nationally, they are local matters and that's how it should be, but we've gotta create at least the feel of a national movement.
The inevitable question soon will become: but what if the document is crap? Am I really expected to endorse crap just because some "fat cat in Washington" wants me to? Well, I admit that it takes a large amount of optimism, which I'm not generally in excess supply of, to think that national Democrats are necessarily up to the task of relaying what it is to be a Democrat. In fact, that's a pretty tough question for most people. If I asked you what it means to be a Democrat, could you answer in three sentences? But I suppose I take comfort in the fact that as long as it preaches Democratic ideas. As long as I agree with at least 50% of the policy recommendations on there, I'm fine with it. After all, I can't demand purity. My philosophy is hardly pure. I'm more partisan than ideologue. And even if I think I could've written our contract better, I'm willing to get behind any document that will enable my dearest friend to have health care, because as of right now he has a knee swollen to twice its natural size and can't get it looked at or take any pain medication until after two months of working a second job at Starbucks so he can get on their health plan.
And that, I suppose, is my bottom line.