Tactics, not ideology

Much grand kerfuffle running back and forth between the hard-core establishment/DLC types (Kilgore, Beinart) on the one hand and genuine leftists like Sirota and more centrist reform Democrats like Kos on the other.

The establishment/DLC folks don't seem to get something that the reform folks do, and I want to expand on it a little. Here's the idea: What Democrats need to win is tactical retooling, not an ideological makeover.

I keep reading in pieces by Beinart and Al From that the base is making ideological demands on its politicians, thus dragging the party too far to the left, thus causing Democrats to lose.

I wonder what issues, and what rabble-rousing leftists, Beinart and From are talking about. Would that be the base that demanded anti-choice Sen. Harry Reid foreswear his position on abortion in order to become Senate Minority Leader? What, you say that didn't happen? Oh, that's right. Maybe these guys are talking about the base that demanded a presidential candidate who promised an immediate pull-out of Iraq. Oh, that didn't happen either.

The truth is, the base was remarkably quiescent this election, energized and happy to support any Dem candidate no matter what their ideology.

What "the base" wants, what people like Michael Moore and the MoveOn folks and the Deaniacs want, are Democrats who will stand up for themselves, who will oppose the Republicans, who will demonstrate some spine. That's it. Nothing more and nothing less.

"The base" has no strong ideological litmus test. As long as a candidate is reasonably to the left of Colin Powell, we're all cool with that. For God's sake, Michael Moore endorsed Wes Clark!

What we demand is some spine. For example, here's a partial list of outrages that have been perpetrated by the Republicans since November 2: nominating Al Gonzalez and Bernie Kerik, pissing on the troops who just want a little armor for their Humvees, revving up the privatize Social Security propaganda machine, the Tom DeLay corruption show, the Arlen Specter intolerance show, etc., etc.

Now, have any Democratic leaders shown even the slightest bit of outrage over any of these events? Well, there's Nancy Pelosi (the only one, to my knowledge, to call for Rummy's resignation), and bully for her. But what about our esteemed senators? What about Terry Mac? I mean how is it possible to fail to make an issue of the Gonzalez nomination? The torture memo guy himself! Instead, we get Pat Leahy praising him for being a nice guy. Where were the Democratic press conferences to denounce DeLay's corruption (again, outside of Pelosi)?

Now, the ideological heart of these matters cause no disagreement among Democrats; we can all agree that torture is bad and that the Bush administration operated from some deep moral abyss when it OK'd torture. So the question of whether to attack the administration and Gonzalez for the scandals at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo is purely a question of tactics, and it is on this question that the split in the Democratic Party becomes obvious.

The question so many Democrats have is this: Why can't our leaders stand up for us? Why can't our leaders attack the administration for its many scandals and failures?

The problem with the Democratic Party is not -- repeat, not -- with ideology. Most Americans do not want Roe repealed. Most Americans support equal rights for gays, and a thumping majority support either civil unions or gay marriage. When given a checklist of issues, most Americans agree with the Democratic position.

Thus, the Democrats would be making a huge mistake if they think they can do yet another little dance to the right and they'll pick up those centrist/swing voters. The reason Democrats keep losing isn't because their policy positions are too far to the left.

Democrats keep losing because they are wishy-washy, don't know how to market their ideas, don't know how to define the opposition, and completely fail to understand how millions of voters make their decisions (more heart than head).

The reason Howard Dean inspired so many people -- the reason he might make a great DNC head -- is that he showed spine. I watched him this morning on MTP, and the contrast between his performance and Harry Reid's last week was remarkable. Though Reid had his good moments, he never even tried to make a coherent case against Bush. Dean, on the other hand, injected into the discussion all kinds of stuff about Bush's extremism, foreign-policy incompetence, and fiscal irresponsibility.

Democrats have already been caught flat-footed in the Social Security debate. All Dems can agree that privatizing by borrowing $2 trillion is a horrifically bad idea. Again, no ideologial disagreement here. Now, how hard would it be for some Democratic leader to come up with the following, every time Democrats are asked about this question:

"Well, Tim, first of all, there is no Social Security crisis. The Republicans are trying to fool the American people on this issue, ginning up a crisis just like they did with Iraq."

How hard is that?