Joe Knippenberg parses an analysis of the Democratic Party's ailments as penned by two scholarly Democrats, William Galston and Elaine Kamarck. As usual Prof. Knippenberg seems to get it largely right. Some highlights from Knippenberg's piece:
In sum, Galston and Kamarck write as if there is no, or need be no, global war on terror. If seriousness on national security matters is supposed to be a sine qua non for Democratic success at the polls, they haven’t shown it.
This is major problem in the Democratic Party for the near future. September 11, 2001 reminded Americans that they live in a dangerous world, and the Democratic party seems utterly unaware of the fact. Passing prettily worded resolutions at the UN only gets you so far.
To the extent that the "upscale professionals" who populate the leadership ranks in the Democratic Party "lead lives that are different from those of average families" and "tend to think and speak differently," they have a hard time connecting with and inspiring confidence in ordinary voters. The real challenge is empathy: Democratic candidates have to act and sound democratic.
It doesn't help when your party's chairman is talking about how you are the "Merlot Democrats." As Joe K. points out, the elite of the Democratic Party are simply out of touch with the values of most Americans. Associating yourself with abortion on demand, same-sex marriage, and Hollywood is not the way to win the heart and mind of the typical American mom.
Here's one where I think Joe is off a bit:
Having supported a major expansion of the government’s power for the sake of national security, through (for example) the USA Patriot Act, Republicans will be hard-pressed to distinguish their support of big government in one arena from their opposition to it in another. Similarly, the Democrats who oppose the national security state may have a hard time explaining why "intrusive" government programs for health security are good, while "intrusive" programs for national security are not.
I think it is quite easy to show that securing us against those who want us all dead is a fundamental job of government, while a cradle to grave nanny state is an intrusion on our lives and our duties to be responsible for our own lives. If only Republicans were better messengers.
I think Joe's central point is quite sound. What Galston and Kamarck offer is little more than another attempt by Democrats to figure out how they can be the liberal party without anyone noticing they are the liberal party.
Recent Comments