Several folks on this blog have complained recently about Clinton's strategy of "triangulation" and how Dean/Gore/Kerry/Clark/etc.'s solution is soooooooo much better.....
Isn't it true that both triangulation (as practiced by Clinton) and Populism (as advocated by Gore) each have elements that work?
Triangulation has gotten a bad reputation from a lot of liberal pundits. They think it's either a callow attempt to win votes, or a repudiation of liberalism.
It is neither.
Triangulation means looking at what your opponent does well, and turning it against him.
On Affirmative Action, "Mend it, don't end it" was Clinton's brillant phrase. It goes beyond the liberal-conservative argument of, "Should minorities get preferences?" to a conversation about solutions: how do we "mend it"?
By moving the conversation past rhetoric, Clinton could push progressive solutions.
On Welfare reform, the Republicans were BASHING us since Welfare was passed that it coddled people too much. What did Clinton do? He moved the conversation past the liberal-conservative argument of, "Should Welfare stay the same, or be changed?" to, "How deep should the changes be?"
Again, Clinton was signing a bill that was far more liberal than anything Ronald Reagan would propose and sign.
Triangulation is, in those ways, a success.
The problem was the post-Clinton years. Instead of moving the conversation forward, we started mindlessly agreeing with the Republicans. We voted for their bills and played by their rules.
They won big time in 98, 2000, and 2002.
Populism was Gore's answer, and it won him the majority of votes in 2000. It is Dean's answer. And now, Edwards and Kerry have plagarized it.
Use both wisely---fight for people, and move the conversation forward, fighting it on YOUR turf, and you win.
End of story.