Many posters have chastised those of us who like to speculate about our favorite candidate's prospects for 2008. They point out that it is far too early to discuss this with any degree of seriousness and that we basically have no clue now of who will emerge in 2008 or on what platform and ideas they will be campaigning. They're half right. We can guess but we really don't have a clue who will excite us in 2008 or who will become our nominee. Who, for example, thought back in 1989 that Bill Clinton would be our next nominee and, be honest, who thought of themselves as a Deaniac four years ago?
But, while it's fruitless to speculate about who will win in 2008, it is not too early to think hard about what ideas will dominate the campaign. This is precisely the time that new ideas need to come forward, be tested, and gain currency. Bill Clinton's middle class tax cut and welfare reform plans did not jump out of his head in 1992. They were developed, debated, and discussed for several years before the campaign by many serious forward thinking people. Similarly, Ronald Reagan's tax cut plans were being discussed by conservative thinkers years before Reagan grabbed on to them. And many of Kennedy's New Frontier ideas were being debated throughout the 1950's.
My main criticism of the 2004 campaign is that it mostly consisted of slamming Bush without offering much of what we would do differently. The prime example of this was Kerry's answer that he would do "everything" different on Iraq from Bush. This may very well have been true but it gave the impression that Kerry's campaign was just about opposing, not proposing. To some extent, this criticism of Kerry is unfair because he did propose a number of important new initiatives and argued even eloquently for them in the debates (he was particularly effective explaining his healthcare plan). But mostly, the emphasis was on what Bush was doing wrong (admittedly a wide target), not on what we would do if we won. Where were the bold Clinton welfare ideas, or the bold (if reckless) Reagan tax ideas? When we primarily campaign on opposing, we can generate fear and even loathing of the opposition, but we don't inspire hope and optimism.
What are our positive ideas? For example, most, if not all of us, oppose Bush's social security plan. But what are our ideas for dealing with an increasingly aging population without imposing increasing taxes on the younger generations? We oppose outsourcing and unfair trade. But what do we propose to do about it while ensuring that we don't cripple the global economy? What are our ideas for reforming an increasingly non-progressive tax code without raising the deficits or killing business?
My point here is not to answer these questions but to emphasize that now is the time for us to do some serious thinking, arguing, and debating on ideas, rather than political process. Part of developing (or, for most of us non-intellectuals and non-brainiacs, commenting on) new ideas is, of course, criticising what is wrong with the old ideas. But the harder step is to focus on what needs to be done to fix the problems and improve our lives. While generalities and slogans are fine ("fair trade," "progressive tax system", etc.), this is the time to put some flesh and bones on these slogans.