I got comment-smacked yesterday for a diary entry asking for opinion on the possible presidential candidacy on Tom Daschle - just wanted to see where people's heads were on that one. That's fine; I bow, chastened. I can agree with some of the points made, and while I didn't exactly mean the post to highlight the shallow words Daschle used, I do understand that he's viewed as a guy with no new ideas. It did get me thinking a little more about the marketing-speak Democrats are throwing around these days, and today E.J. Dionne's got an op-ed on the topic.
Check it:
Democrats are obsessed with visions, messages, programs and narratives. The party's leaders, thinkers and consultants have held a slew of meetings and are said to be close to a statement of hopes and principles. They are determined to apply the tactical lessons Newt Gingrich taught when he offered a Contract With America in 1994. There is a collective rush to the nearest thesaurus as Democrats consider a Compact With America and a Covenant With America. A Bargain or even a Concordat can't be far behind. Personally, I'm still fond of the word Deal (as in "Square," "New" and "Fair"), but I guess that word is just too 20th century.
At this point, it's not even about differentiating ourselves from the other side. We - the party - have already become them. This is about making a radical break with all of that, and saving what's left. As Dionne points out, it can't be said any plainer than we've already heard:
Consider this vision statement: "The issue of government has always been whether individual men and women will have to serve some system of government of economics -- or whether a system of government and economics exists to serve individual men and women."
The words are Franklin D. Roosevelt's from his 1932 speech to the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco, FDR's boldest statement of purpose before he was elected. Roosevelt's point was that while powerful groups often claim to oppose a strong government role in the nation's economic life, they almost always seek government's protection for their own interests. Government's task, Roosevelt argued, was to intervene "not to hamper individualism but to protect it" by helping the less powerful confront economic difficulties and abuses of the system by the powerful.
It's time to drop the rhetoric and do. I don't want the masters we have now, but the prospect of living in a world where progressives merely maintain a tenuous grasp on the reins by pandering and slapping a prettier coat of paint on the same weak agenda saddens and sickens me.
Here's another vision statment: "With Liberty and Justice for All." Say it out loud, where someone else can hear you. If you don't feel that in your gut, your vision means nothing.