Just last night, I bumped into an old reminder that the Democratic Party is woefully behind in crafting a comprehensive, successful strategy for dealing with right-wing gibberish. To call the problem old is an understatement, really. By political standards, it's ancient.
It would be one thing for the Democratic Party to dismiss the need for comprehensively countering such nonsense if it drew no blood. But it has. In fact, it's been directly responsible for some of the heaviest losses absorbed by the Democratic Party--and the country it serves--for far, far too long.
Instead of wasting time by trying to make bad things sound good or squelching dissent, like Republicans do, I think I've found a better starting point. Why not shoot for clarity instead?
Part of a comprehensive political strategy should include making an effort to craft an image of this party moving in the same general direction or, at the very least, avoiding the appearance of directly conflicting movement.
Case in point:
A clear image taking shape
The Supreme Court ruling on Citizens United was righteously controversial, if not ruefully anticipated by some close observers. But it presented the Democratic Party with its clearest opportunity yet to begin turning the tide of opinion, across the polity and the aisle, strongly in its favor.
Obama and congressional Democrats seized that opportunity yesterday, knowing they would find willing cooperation waiting for them in every nook and cranny of the United States to shift the nation's focus from being captive of incredibly powerful interests back to making people the most powerful voice in Washington.
President Obama called it "a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans."
Here's President Obama today, continuing to make strong gains in restoring the Democratic Party's image as a defender of real people and guardian of democracy:
The address begins:
One of the reasons I ran for President was because I believed so strongly that the voices of everyday Americans, hardworking folks doing everything they can to stay afloat, just weren’t being heard over the powerful voices of the special interests in Washington. And the result was a national agenda too often skewed in favor of those with the power to tilt the tables.
And ends:
A hundred years ago, one of the great Republican Presidents, Teddy Roosevelt, fought to limit special interest spending and influence over American political campaigns and warned of the impact of unbridled, corporate spending. His message rings as true as ever today, in this age of mass communications, when the decks are too often stacked against ordinary Americans. And as long as I’m your President, I’ll never stop fighting to make sure that the most powerful voice in Washington belongs to you.
That is a responsible president delivering a healthy populist message. And the message is clear: the battle for America's heart and soul has begun.
Or has it?
Meanwhile, a concurrent story running in the news stream is that Rahm Emanuel and Timothy Geithner are working the phones to confirm Ben Bernanke for a second term as US Federal Reserve chief.
Bernanke's nomination faces opposition for failing to identify and rein in what Senator Feingold characterized as "grossly irresponsible financial activities that led to the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression." Senator Boxer explained her opposition:
"It is time for Main Street to have a champion at the Fed," Ms. Boxer said. "Our next Federal Reserve chairman must represent a clean break from the failed policies of the past."
In spite of the fact that senators from across the political spectrum have expressed opposition to Bernanke, some going so far as to propose legislation that would enhance the US Congress's abilities to audit the Fed, the pressure to confirm Bernanke remains.
By day’s end, other Democratic senators had rallied around Mr. Bernanke. Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut, the chairman of the Banking Committee, warned that a no vote would "send the worst signal to the markets right now in the country and send us in a tailspin."
Senator Mary L. Landrieu of Louisiana announced qualified support, saying that "failing to reappoint Mr. Bernanke would only add turmoil to markets that are just beginning to recover."
And, just like that, the clear image of a party moving to protect and empower regular people is marred by the looming conflict of appeasing a melodramatic and inflexible market.
On and on it goes
Blaming Reid, Dodd, or Landrieu is a mistake. They answered a call for support from high-level officials of the Obama Administration. The result is that Democratic Party appears to be on a collision course with itself once again. Just in time for another election.
I'm going to stop wondering why the press continually raises the Democrats-in-disarray narrative. I'm going to pity Democratic Party faithful when its spokespeople casually blame the idealism and obstinacy of liberals for its troubles with the electorate. I'm going to stop pretending I can't understand why voters don't know where Democrats are coming from, or going to. It isn't just regular voters, even congressional staffers are grasping for clarity:
This is my life and I simply can't answer the fundamental question: "what do Democrats stand for?" Voters don't know, and we can't make the case, so they're reacting exactly as you'd expect (just as they did in 1994, 2000, and 2004). We either find the voice to answer that question and exercise the strongest majority and voter mandate we've had since Watergate, or we suffer a bloodbath in November.
Furthermore, I'm not going to pretend I can't understand why voters might find that lack of clarity downright shady. It certainly appears to lack sure-footing, and even conviction.
It makes sense for voters to ask themselves, as they read both stories side-by-side: who will win--powerful corporations (and their sword of Damocles we glibly call the "market") or regular folks? With any room to wiggle, which of them always wins?
I think voters know that Democrats are smart. The problem is that these mash-ups make Democrats seem too clever by half. Fair or not, it's a reasonable conclusion to draw.
If this convoluted imaging and message about who Democrats are, why they want peoples' money and need peoples' votes a mistake, then fixing it is long overdue.
I'd go so far as to say that, where politics is concerned, it should be priority number one at this point.