Three Numbers, One Problem
WaPo op-edder E.J. Dionne in a new column celebrates the fact that "President Bush has finally faced his moment of accountability. The travails of Hurricane Katrina followed a bad summer for the president and have called into question his leadership style, competence and intense partisanship."
He veers from that into the inability of the Democrats to capitalize on this, and their collective indecision over whether to be "liberal ideologues" or "centrist." I think his analysis of the party's woes as a matter of three numbers is a good one:
[In my Internet interactions (admittedly a small and unscientific sampling), committed Democrats' reaction to centerists have ranged from mildly condescension to outright flamethrowing. Marc Cooper is the only one I've corresponded with who's been genuinely engaging. The frustration that underlies the hostility is understandable. But it makes better psychotherapy than political sense. But then that -- misplaced priorities between personal and political -- has been one of the center-right's grievances with much of what's left on the liberal side.]
Dionne also points out how these numbers present a problem for the Democratic dream of capturing the House in 2006.
After more ruminations on the Democrats' dilemmas, Dionne turns to the bright side:
Oh, but he makes no mention of what a tight-rope walk to the promised land that will be.
Dionne is careful to write "flow of negative news about the administration" (emphasis added), but too often his target audience blows right through that clause without regard for the qualifying element. They look like the ghoul party. "When America hurts, Democrats benefit."
And while highlighting the administration's problems is potentially a winning strategy, events like hurricanes and war deaths and even high oil prices mean suffering for all of America. The voters may be able, intellectually, to parse out the political angle from those tragedies and problems, but in their guts they will feel that anyone who actually celebrates such events is essentially on the other side.
It's up to the party that attempts such a strategy to do it without a smirk, without a twinkle in the eye. It's exactly because the voters will pay more attention to the opposition at such moments that the opposition has to be on its best behavior. If the voters sense the grim reaper smile on the opposition's face at the sight of American suffering, the door slams shut. Essentially conservative (in the non-political sense) American voters will stick with the devil they know.
When bad news for America hits the front pages, too often my Democratic peers celebrate it. They only see it as bad news for Bush. They don't seem to sense that an indictment of a Bush official is one kind of bad news, and a terrorist attack is another. There's a dissembling art in politics, and they haven't learned it.
Might I suggest that too often they are hamstrung by an essential and relentless pessimism about America's history and its virtues, its potential and its promise, among the chief spokesmen and women of the movement? Might I suggest a reacquaintance with the rhetoric of John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr., as a lesson in how to say, "We are a great nation, but we can do better than this; in fact, we must do better than this, because we are a great nation."
Look, the Federalists were right about the War of 1812 and the Madison administration's shenanigans. And look where it got them: They branded themselves as a party of national traitors, who preferred the British to their fellow citizens and held aloof in the nation's time of dire need. They never won office at the national level again. Opposition is not in itself fatal, but it's all in how you do the thing.
As someone with a strong suspicion of many people on the right, I don't relish the sight of the party of the political left charging down the path to permanent minoritarianism. But I'll keep waiting for political leaders from that side who convince me America can be moved forward by appeals to what is great in our national heritage and dreams, rather than driven shame-faced into "progress" by the lash of Michael Moore's tongue.
He veers from that into the inability of the Democrats to capitalize on this, and their collective indecision over whether to be "liberal ideologues" or "centrist." I think his analysis of the party's woes as a matter of three numbers is a good one:
According to the network exit polls, 21 percent of the voters who cast ballots in 2004 called themselves liberal, 34 percent said they were conservative and 45 percent called themselves moderate. Those numbers mean that liberal-leaning Democrats are far more dependent than conservatively inclined Republicans on alliances with the political center.
[In my Internet interactions (admittedly a small and unscientific sampling), committed Democrats' reaction to centerists have ranged from mildly condescension to outright flamethrowing. Marc Cooper is the only one I've corresponded with who's been genuinely engaging. The frustration that underlies the hostility is understandable. But it makes better psychotherapy than political sense. But then that -- misplaced priorities between personal and political -- has been one of the center-right's grievances with much of what's left on the liberal side.]
Dionne also points out how these numbers present a problem for the Democratic dream of capturing the House in 2006.
It takes 218 seats to form a majority in the House of Representatives. Kerry carried only 180 congressional districts, according to the Almanac of American Politics. Put another way, Democrats, according to the Almanac, now hold and have to defend 41 House districts that Bush carried. Republicans are defending only 18 districts that Kerry carried.
After more ruminations on the Democrats' dilemmas, Dionne turns to the bright side:
The truth is that opposition parties normally get a chance only when the governing party disappoints. For the time being, that means that Democrats will have no problem staying united behind the imperative of keeping Bush on the ropes. The flow of negative news about the administration will do much of the Democrats' work for them.
Oh, but he makes no mention of what a tight-rope walk to the promised land that will be.
Dionne is careful to write "flow of negative news about the administration" (emphasis added), but too often his target audience blows right through that clause without regard for the qualifying element. They look like the ghoul party. "When America hurts, Democrats benefit."
And while highlighting the administration's problems is potentially a winning strategy, events like hurricanes and war deaths and even high oil prices mean suffering for all of America. The voters may be able, intellectually, to parse out the political angle from those tragedies and problems, but in their guts they will feel that anyone who actually celebrates such events is essentially on the other side.
It's up to the party that attempts such a strategy to do it without a smirk, without a twinkle in the eye. It's exactly because the voters will pay more attention to the opposition at such moments that the opposition has to be on its best behavior. If the voters sense the grim reaper smile on the opposition's face at the sight of American suffering, the door slams shut. Essentially conservative (in the non-political sense) American voters will stick with the devil they know.
When bad news for America hits the front pages, too often my Democratic peers celebrate it. They only see it as bad news for Bush. They don't seem to sense that an indictment of a Bush official is one kind of bad news, and a terrorist attack is another. There's a dissembling art in politics, and they haven't learned it.
Might I suggest that too often they are hamstrung by an essential and relentless pessimism about America's history and its virtues, its potential and its promise, among the chief spokesmen and women of the movement? Might I suggest a reacquaintance with the rhetoric of John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr., as a lesson in how to say, "We are a great nation, but we can do better than this; in fact, we must do better than this, because we are a great nation."
Look, the Federalists were right about the War of 1812 and the Madison administration's shenanigans. And look where it got them: They branded themselves as a party of national traitors, who preferred the British to their fellow citizens and held aloof in the nation's time of dire need. They never won office at the national level again. Opposition is not in itself fatal, but it's all in how you do the thing.
As someone with a strong suspicion of many people on the right, I don't relish the sight of the party of the political left charging down the path to permanent minoritarianism. But I'll keep waiting for political leaders from that side who convince me America can be moved forward by appeals to what is great in our national heritage and dreams, rather than driven shame-faced into "progress" by the lash of Michael Moore's tongue.
