Let's begin by conceding a few obvious facts. The Republicans as a national party have had a rough couple of years. Bush's approval ratings fell into the low thirties, clearly a danger zone, and remained there for a good stretch. It's a sign of how bad things were that numbers in the low forties were cause for celebration in the White House. Bush's only real problem is the Iraq war. If gas prices were depressing people, that hasn't stopped them from hitting the road over the summer. Otherwise, the economy is doing remarkably well by all the fair measures that are applied to administrations. But Iraq is a big problem, as most Americans have no confidence in it. This hurts Bush and the Republican Party in general.
Such a situation creates obvious opportunities for the Democrats in an election year. But opportunities have to be exploited, and you would think that the Democrats need to do more than remind people of how much an ass the President is. They need to show that they represent a viable alternative, right? Wrong.
The 2004 election shows what happens when the Democrats try to present a viable alternative. They fail. Given a choice between Bush and the Hamlet on the Hudson, Bush wins. It reminds me of a scene in Patton. George C Scott wakes up a sleeping soldier in the barracks in North Africa and asks him loudly what he is doing. "I'm trying to take a knap, Sir." Patton replies "get back down there son," or something to this effect, "he's the only one in this damn army that knows what he is trying to do." Even if you think that Bush is sleeping on the job, at least he knows what he is trying to do. That's more than Kerry has ever figured out. Bush's approval rating still beats Kerry's.
The Democrat's best strategy is to be as invisible as possible. Keep the public eye focused squarely on Bush as his problems. Let them forget who would be taking over if Congress is handed to the opposition party. That, at least, seems to be the strategy illustrated in a fund-raising letter sent to Steve Lopez, writing in the Los Angeles Times.
It's not often that I reach into my mailbox at home and find a letter from Ted Kennedy, so I was eager to see what was on the mind of the saber-rattling senator from the great state of Massachusetts.
The letter began "Dear Friend," which is a little impersonal, if you ask me. When my friends at the Republican National Committee wrote to ask me to sign President Bush's birthday card — and send along a few bucks — they began their letter, "Dear Steve."
Kennedy, you'll be shocked to know, was also hitting me up for money, in this case for the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee.
"Yes, Senator Kennedy," said the contribution form I was supposed to check off and return, "I share your concern over the arrogance and incompetence of the Bush Administration."
In anticipation of my generosity, Kennedy enclosed a complimentary bumper sticker:
HAD ENOUGH? Vote Democrat in '06
As a matter of fact, I do share Kennedy's concern about the Bush administration, and so I was eager to read the four-page letter and other enclosed materials to find out more about the alternative vision being offered up by the Democratic Party.
Page 1, however, contained no such clues. It just fired more bazooka shots at the president and his "extreme right-wing allies," so I figured the fresh ideas from the Dems had to be on Page 2.
Wrong again. Page 2 was nothing but groveling for money for contested races in Missouri, Montana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Maryland and Minnesota. ("It's urgent for each of us to do as much as possible as soon as possible!")
Page 3 suggested the Republicans will burn in hell for sins against humanity ("They've poisoned our air and water"), and Page 4 warned, "They'll never stop unless we stop them. They're shameless!"
That's quite a cavalry call, but it seems to me the Democrats are once again rushing to the front lines with empty muskets.
I'm not asking for the Democratic equivalent of a 10-point Contract With America, having lowered my expectations while on the campaign trail with Al Gore and bearing witness to his nationally televised identity crisis.
I'd settle for a five-point "Contract With Western Blue States." Heck, I'd be happy with a warmed-over crumb of an idea or two.
Instead all we get from the Democrats is the reminder that they stand for … wait, let's see, where was that platform draft?
Oh, yeah. They're anti-Iraq war, or at least they are now that it's turned out so miserably.
And they're passionately … hold on a second. What else was there?
Anti-Republican. That's it.
Lopez seems to think that the Democrats ought to offer alternative policies of their own. But that's not what the Democrats think, and they're right. The party is torn between Kossacks, who may have a coherent leftist agenda (though it's not quite clear what it is), and pragmatists who are certain that such an agenda is a losing hand. Anything the two sides can agree on will make the party look like it doesn't know what it is trying to do. I think the fund raising letter got it just right. They're Bush. We're not Bush. If they can keep that focus they might do well in November.
ps. Its not that there aren't coherent thinkers in the Democratic Party. See Professor Schaff's excellent post below on Barak Obama.
Recent Comments