While I don't disagree with the premise of the argument you make, the Democrats have one very large problem right now. The Republians have been extremely successful in painting the Democrats with the broad stroke (no ideas Democrats). And that label sticks with the American public. You can see it in any polling asking about 'vision', message, or ideas.

So if the Democrats don't have at least some, broad based, clearly articuated messages, how do you break that Republican message down and show it to be untrue? While I don't agree with, nor approve of 'lock-step', there has to be some way we break the now created stereo-type of the Republican message machine.

Is it just me, or does attempting to field a complete slate of "brilliant", "exceptionally skilled individuals" seem like an exceedingly difficult task?

One of the reasons that some of us on the left envy the republican/conservative 'clarity' is that they can insert a monkey like W into the machine and churn out a two-term president. Us liberals/dems, who have to rely on brilliance and exceptional skill have to wait for our once-in-a-generation talent (FDR, JFK, WJC).

Turning into a republican-style parlimentary party is probably a very bad idea, and I suspect even Kos would agree. However, having a clearly defined and easily identifiable core set of principles that the Democratic Party is *about* is pretty clearly a good idea. Maybe that's not "message clarity", but its something in the same ballpark. And, most importantly, it doesn't leave us in the wilderness if a large slate of"brilliant", "exceptionally skilled individuals" aren't forthcoming in any given election year.

I'd rather have a party of brilliant constituent politicians who work for their states and districts than a bunch of talking-point robots echoing a national message for the sake of a misguided worship of the right-wing's "message clarity."




That's a bit of a strawman, isn't it? Whoever said anything about talking point robots? Also, what makes you think that the successful GOP candidates in recent years were talking point robots, as if they did not have individual personalities that people connected with?




The important thing to remember is that the message clarity of the GOP has been effective because the underlying ideas behind those messages were attractive to the public and the benefit of that attractiveness rubbed off on individual candidates. The attractiveness of the GOP message has diminished not because people necessarily want the opposite of what the GOP core philosophy is (i.e. strong defense, low taxes, small government etc., but rather that the GOP has been shown to be a party of corrupt extremists. People may warm to the "small government" message, but that doesn't mean they will tolerate shutting down the government or seeing rank incompetence in its core functions. Similarly, people may say they want a strong defense, but that doesn't mean they agree with invading countries on flimsy pretexts.


I think message clarity is vitally important. I think people have to know what Democrats stand for and it has to be things that people want. There can be plenty of room for personality and variation, but the core philosophy of the party should be clear and it should rub off positively on individual candidates the way the GOP "brand" does (or did).

Definitely in agreement with the readers on this one.

A smorgasbord of local politicians may have trouble unifying in the long run.  Look at the New Deal coalition.  Roosevelt may have done well to keep conservative Southern Democrats in line, but eventually they fell apart, and we are still feeling the impact.  

(And doesn't constituent work often lead to meaningless pork, rather than reform?)

A robotic machine is a bad idea for democracy and for the Democrats.  But finding national themes and national issues is important.  Iraq, health care, national service, and some type of work/globalization issue sound nice to me.  That's just what makes a party a party.

Well, maybe Democrats should start noticing that their members of congress today are less popular than Dick Cheney.

Look: I vote for Democrats. I even am one at times. But I see little recognition within the Party of how the American people views Democrats today. Even as they see the GOP as the party of corporate cronyism and welfare, increasing unfriendliness toward the middle class, and none-too-rare corruption, they also see the Democrats as beholden to public employee unions, only slightly less beholden to corporations (witness the bankruptcy bill follies, and the Party's lackluster to non-existent response to the new overtime rules, not to mention elements of the Party's perennial hostility at the state and local level to new housing statrts, which is part the reason millions of younger Americans can't afford to buy homes and any number of other things), and generally half-oblivious to the major issues of our time (notably terrorism).

The Democrats see themselves as right on the issues, but perhaps having message problems, or needing to speak in a more authentic Texas drawl, and use the word "God" a lot. That isn't it folks. The Democrats don't just have an image problem. They have a problem-problem. What is the Democratic plan for bringing political and economic reform to the Arab-Muslim world and winning the so-called war on terror? What is the Democratic plan for making the UN more accountable? What is the Democratic for full energy independence by 2020 (and don't say Appollo...it is not even a half-measure)? What is the Democratic plan for multilateralizing the American empire, and spreading the human and fiscal burden of policing the world around to other nations? What is the Democratic plan for keeping taxes for everyone low (the middle class wants to be rich someday - Democrats need to understand that) in the face of already ballooning deficits that will mushroom when boomers begin collecting entitlements? Where is the Democratic plan to roll back the bankruptcy bill and overtime rules? What is the Democratic plan not only for universal health care coverage but slashing costs without resorting to rationing? What is the Democratic plan for cutting corporate welfare and slash federal bureaucracy? What is the Democratic plan for curbing illegal immigration? What is the Democratic plan for getting corporate and public employee union money alike out of politics? What is the Democratic plan for devolving more power to states and localities? Where is the Democratic proposal for a privacy amdendment to the constitution?
You look abroad for signs of the times. In Germany today a coalition government representing the broad center of the electorate has taken power. In Israel Sharon and Peres both are leaving their respective parties to form a new centrist party. It will likely be the party of government.
No one should be surprised to wake up two years from now and find that a few sane, rational folks in both parties have split from their respective parties and formed a new radical centrist third party. We have reached a point where the Republican and Democratic bases and special interests are a liability to the interests of the American people. Sweeping centrist reform at home and abroad is not simply a luxury today; it is a necessity.

BradtheDad, if there's question in your mind, i'll be happy to say it: the republicans are full of talking point robots. The party discipline has been absolutely awesome in recent years, and mark's point, which i agree with, is that when you have that tight a level of party discipline and ideological rigor, when it goes south, it goes south badly.

You can hardly have party discipline on Iraq when you've got Joe Lieberman and the folks who still have their peace signs up from 2003 in the same party.  I will say that it gives the sign folks a head start on the season.  Just hang the lights around the Peace sign and it's Peace on Earth, Good Will Towards Men.  I think I found a message!

I think Kilgore and Teixera's way of looking at things places far to much emphasis on electoral success, in that I think it places almost exclusive emphasis on it.  This was the problem with the Clinton years as well I think.  Electoral success is important, but it ought not be the primary goal of the party, nor of the members of that party.  For decades the Republicans have been fighting and winning the war of ideas, not because their ideas are better (they generally don't make sense or are supported by lies) but because Dems don't seem to get that involved.  If you listen to the conservative media outlets you will find the basic tenets of progressivism and liberalism under assualt, and you will have found this over the course of the last few decades.  You can hear republicans questioning not just the activities of labor unions, but their legitimacy as an institution.  Most liberals just take it for granted that they are a valuable institution, and while they are right, this is not explained all that often.  We don't get the defense of the workers and workers rights that we used to, we get a simple appeal to those who already agree that workers rights are important.  We get somebody saying 'this legislation is an attack on workers rights'.  We don't get the defense of the claim that workers rights should trump the profit motive and profit prospects of corporations.  That is what we need.  The republicans have people who argue that they shouldn't and they don't have much opposition.  This is just one example, but the way to fix this is to get someone in a think tank who questions the slavish attitude that republicans and libertarians have towards capital, and the view that the rich deserve all that they have.  It sounds radical to question these things now, but they weren't at all radical 30 years ago.  What was radical were ideas like the flat tax, which now has a large part of the ruling party supporting it. 
Essentially I don't think that Dems talk enough about their core values.  Maybe the reason that this is so is because talking about these things means taking a firm stand on things, and making clear what you aren't willing to compromise on.  This does reduce wiggle room and will lose you votes in the middle, true.  But so long as we let republicans keep moving the general ideology of our country to the right, we allow them to continually redefine the center left and right.  The vital center today supports reduction of welfare benefits, privatization of some sort for those benefit programs that remain, free trade pacts, lower less progressive tax schemes, and violations of civil rights in favor of security.  Werent these all right wing positions a decade ago? 

I know that these are not new ideas at all.  The Nation and the Progressive appeal to this reasoning alot, but I have not been able to find anything approaching a cogent response to this line of reasoning.  Not from the DLC, the PPI, TNR, or any of the center-left blogs like TPM, Political Animal, Bull Moose, etc.  All I can see are bare appeals to poll numbers, and that doesn't amount to a response.  It amounts to saying that if we fight to win in the long term we will lose in the short term, and to that I say, 'Well tough, we wouldn't be in this mess if we hadn't gotten so wrapped up in the short term'.

"yes, but bluenomad, the question isn't whether democrats in aggregate in congress are less popular than dick cheney: no one votes for the democrats in aggregate."

I don't think I said they did. But you seem inclined to dismiss the importance of this metric altogether; that smacks of denial.

"as for some of your other questions, i'm not sure why the democrats need a plan for a privacy ammendment, or a plan to keep taxes low, or a plan for making the UN more accountable."

Kudos for selectively picking out the least important elements of a radical centrist reform agenda, and generalizing their relative unimportance. Go ahead and dismiss the importance of UN reform and a privacy amendment - they are as much markers of centrism as serious issues - but Democrats dismiss the importance of political and economic reform in the Arab-Muslim world, and the plight of the American middle class (which has been abandoned by both parties) at their own peril.

"Now, a nice simple Dem plan for restoring alliances and introducing national health care - those are things i'd like to see the party get behind, but in fact, kerry ran on restoring alliances and on the next best thing to nationalized health care..."

That should tell you something about the relative importance of "restoring alliances" to the American people at this juncture. France and Germany won't be attacking us, but radical Islamists from countries whose repressive governments are being propped up by Washington will. Mr. Bush ran on a platform of democracy promotion in the Arab-Muslim world and won. We can debate the facetiousness of his commitment to this outcome (especially in countries that really matter, like Saudi Arabia and Egypt), and the possibility of catastrophic sectarian forces being unleashed by so much as the prospect of the democracy in that part of the world (look at Iraq), but as Mrs. Thatcher used to say: T.I.N.A, as in there is no alternative. America's imperial protection racket in the Arab-Muslim world is no longer sustainable, and the American people are betting that democracy is the answer to the threat posed by Islamist terrorism. John Kerry never so much as mentioned the word Arab and democracy in the same sentence during the campaign, or even Iraq and democracy.

"As i said earlier, in quoting mark, the problem isn't ideas or plans: it's slogans and candidates."

That's Clinton-era thinking, that it's all just image and spin. It has been failing the Democrats since 9/11, and it will continue to fail them.

"what i will poke fun at is the notion that bush won because he stands for "democracy promotion." please."

Look, it has been demonstrated fairly conclusively that the swing voters who might have voted for Kerry but voted for Bush did so because they trusted this president on national security and foreign policy. A majority of voters on election day told exit pollsters they felt the war in Iraq was part of the broader war on terror. The polling on the relationship between support for Bush and the belief that democracy promotion is the solution to the threat of Islamist terrorism is still limited, but at least one poll - and it may have been Pew or Gallup - found a connection. Likewise, there seems to be ample evidence that political reform in the Arab-Muslim world is the actual solution to the threat, whether elite liberal Democrats believe it or not.

"now, as for "radical centrism," i have no idea what that means..."

Try here.

"don't list UN accountability in your laundry list and i won't have to poke fun at it."

It's not in the top five most important issues to American voters, but unqualified support for the United Naitons is a problem for Democrats, and support for UN reform not only lends credibility to the candidacy of a Democrat for president, but happens to be the right thing to do. Allowing Syria to be an arbiter of human rights standards, and holding a convention on internet freedom in repressive Tunisia is morally offensive to anyone who genuinely cares about human rights, as is Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo.

"and what's really hard to take seriously is the notion that espousing good candidates and good slogans is "clinton-era" thinking. no, it isn't: it's standard good politics. as for the related notion that everything changed on 9/11/01: no, it didn't."
 
Attractive candidates with the wrong positions are insufficient in the post 9/11 era. What you are doing is simply regurgitating the conventional wisdom of the present generation of Washington Democratic elites - who lost the last two major elections in 2002 and 2004 - and which is failing their party and failing the country.

Democrats have an advantage on almost every issue except...viable candidates to run.  The Dems will likely make moderate gains in next year's election, but still have very little chance of regaining the White House in 2008.  Why?  Simply because they have nobody who is electable to that office.  On the flip side, the GOP will throw John McCain, Rudolph Guiliani, Bill Frist, and Mitt Romney out there.  Romney is a long shot, but the other three could easily be elected.

Re: <span class="Apple-style-span">But I believe it has been very effective on Independents and Undecideds at election time. And it these groups that win the election (or lose the election) for the parties. </span&gt<span class="Apple-style-span">-------------</span&gt<span class="Apple-style-span">
</span&gt<span class="Apple-style-span">Independents & Undecideds are the ones who chastise the Dems, and even the Repubs, for lacking vision and ideas. This is why I question whether the Repubs were the ones who had initiated the characterization. I don't think so. Nor do I believe that Independents & Undecideds would take Repub characterizations of Dems too seriously. After all they are Independents & Undecideds because they do not share the vision and ideas, in all respects, of either party.  </span&gt<span class="Apple-style-span">
</span&gt<span class="Apple-style-span">
</span&gt