The Economist did a cover story on the Dems heading into fall'06.
They take a fair, at times unfair, and sobering look at the Democratic Party...not so much from a "horse race/political victory" point of view but rather from a frank and realistic one focusing on where they, perhaps where they should be in light of GOP failures and what they would do with control of Congress after the 2006 elections.
These quotes best sum up their point of view:
Two years ago, this newspaper narrowly favoured Mr. Kerry's incoherence over Mr. Bush's incompetence. Since then, Republican incompetence has exceeded even our worst fears. How depressing to report that Democratic incoherence has soared too. America deserves better.
...if the Republicans reek of decay, the Democrats ooze dysfunctionality: divided, beholden to interest groups and without a coherent policy on anything that matters to America.
They quote Markos on this matter and his push for a uniform agenda and conviction. I'm not so sure the leadership listening.
Then they turn to the economy and this is where things get more critical. GOP budget deficits and profligate spending are clearly an advantage...especially in light of looming budget busters in Social Security and Medicare.
But the Dems are high on critique but low on clear alternatives to do anything about it. All the leaders have taken turns rightfully jabbing the Bush and the GOP on reckless spending and deficits but, as a group, haven't been supportive of many budget cuts. In fact, they often pushed for even more spending while never offering any countering cuts for those increases. They're pressing for "PAYGO" policies and a 2001, 2003 tax cut repeal of the richest. Yet, they propose little else on the revenue side while calling for more spending in certain areas like subsidized savings for 100 mil of the least well-off, widened eligibility for Medicaid, tax credits for health costs along with an increase in Minimum wage. Cautious yet expensive ideas. This is all fine but where's the money??
I see a real opportunity to take a stand on fiscal responsibility and beat the GOP at one of there hallmark claims. But all the rhetoric seems a bit hollow. Nobody really wants to take a solid stand on the budget. Clinton is gone now and I fear his example his fading.
They see good policy proposals from independent Dem-out-crop think thanks like the Hamilton Project but worry leadership will ignore them since they involve angering parts of its base like teachers.
Speaking of special interests, they applaud Schweitzer, Montana's new Dem governor, for telling narrow interest liberal groups to take a back seat. It worked. He won.
What about trade? Dem voting trends in Congress have been reeking of protectionism lately. What would happen? Of course, this one area where the Economist most veers into libertarian ideology.
But budgetary and spending, again, is an area where Dems could find themselves between a rock and hard place, if they wind up fighting for more spending after blasting the GOP's record on it for the last 6 years. In which case, a clear opportunity to redefine themselves will be wasted and they'll be back to where they started in no time.
One final message to the party is to not become perceived, out of Bush Hatred, as a diametrically opposed faction to everything that Bush is..namely as an isolationist, anti-business, protectionist party. This is bad for policy and a bad message to send to moderate voters.
These are the very voters that Markos is trying to attract in his book calling for a clear message that resonates and is right on the issues. Taking hardline stances against issues where Bush merely failed to do it right is not the way to win over moderates.
So take pause and ask yourselves if and how the Democratic Leadership is tackling the opportunities, namely in the economy that Bush and Co. have lobbed them. Or, will they, like the GOP after 2004, talk the talk and then fail to walk the walk.