Having just recently begun rereading George Lakoff's book, I am shocked to read what I did this morning in the Washington Post. The front page article depicts "Democrats Split over Position on the Iraq War." The fourth paragraph states: "The internal schism has become all the more evident in recent weeks even as Americans have soured on Bush and the war in poll after poll. Senate Democrats, according to aides, convened a private meeting in late June to develop a cohesive stance on the war and debated every option - only to break up with no consensus."
Lakoff, in his very first chapter, wrote about how Democrats consistently hurt themselves by splitting up, by refusing to work together because each faction is determined that its position is the only way. Republicans, on the other hand, are notoriously good at staying cohesive. Washington Democrats profess to have read Lakoff, mostly, it seems, to gain "street cred" with activists. Obviously, though, they haven't.
More in extended.
Specifically, what Lakoff (and other documenters of the real right-wing conspiracy) showed is that Republcians trade off on issues. This is one reason that the Republicans can be against government regulation of guns and for government regulation of marriage. One position appeals to the libertarians, and the other works with social conservatives. Obviously, there are other reasons, such as the fact that many supposed "Chrisitians" feel they need automatic weapons to take down deer. But it is a good example of two positions that appear to clash but really lead to compromise.
The Democrats need to stop disagreeing with each other on Iraq. We need a party position on it, just as we need a list of programs in general to oppose Bush (or at least make the programs more obvious to Americans). Instead the Democrats are reduced to in-party squabbling, and are not gaining as much from the President's now-36%-approval rate as they should be.
After all, as David Ignatius wrote a couple of days ago in the Post, loathing is not a strategy when most Americans find the guy you loathe to be a likable guy. Sad, but true. Republicans succeeded in 1994 because they had real programs to oppose Clinton programs such as expanded health-care and so forth. When they let their anger out later in the 90s and attacked him without substance (including their overzealous prosecution of him on Monicagate), they lost public support.
Back to Iraq: Democratic leaders, both on Capitol Hill and off, should get together and come to a consensus on Iraq. Let's look at how they could get either the "pull-out" position or the "stay-there" position. I am teetering on the edge of saying we should pull out, though I am waiting to give the Iraqi constituiton a short chance (i.e. my position might change tommorrow if the Constitution is as bad as I fear). But I want to look at both angles. As Lakoff wrote, we should get the position we want on Iraq with tradeoffs on the other issues.
Let's say Democrats decide on this issue that we should stay the course, because we want to shore up security points for the coming elections. Then more progressive people should be allowed to have control over the party's Social Security policy. Or perhaps the gay rights rhetoric becomes stronger. Or the push for campaign finance reform gains more voice.
On ther other hand, what if the Democrats decide that the anti-war movement is going to be a big force? Then they should agree that on the Iraq War to support a pullout (including a general date). As a trade, the party becomes more centrist on Social Security, or health care, or another issue.
Some will scream no compromise. But if we do not have compormise, we will get nothing, especially at the polls.