The Vision Thing
President George H.W. Bush invented that phrase during the 92 campaign but it’s today’s Democrats that suffer from that dreaded disease, this NY Times article notwithstanding. Here’s a sampling of this article’s idea of the Democrats’ vision:
“What the Democrats still don’t have is a philosophy, a big idea that unites their proposals and converts them from a hodgepodge of narrow and specific fixes into a vision for society,” Michael Tomasky, editor of the liberal journal The American Prospect, wrote in a much-discussed essay in the May issue.
A broader vision, many of these analysts say, will help the Democratic Party counter the charge, so often advanced by Republicans, that the Democrats are merely a collection of interest groups, labor, civil rights, abortion rights and the like, each consumed with their own agenda, rather than the nation’s. John Podesta, who heads a center-left research group, the Center for American Progress, says an appeal to the common good “gets away from what we’ve sort of gotten used to in the last couple cycles, a pollster-driven niche idea framing, toward a larger vision of where you want to take the country.”
The idea that all of these groups aren’t thinking about each other isn’t surprising. It’s typical, disjointed, dysfunctional and incoherent. Democrats haven’t thought in traditional terms in ages. They aren’t liberals; they’re progressives. And progressives think so far outside the box that the average voter questions whether they’re from the same planet.
Another problem outlined in this article is that Democrats use nice-sounding, pollster-tested words without really saying anything. After you look at the logic, you see this isn’t coherent logic.
Democrats and progressive intellectuals have a history of debating philosophies and world views. Sometimes those debates result in a consensus and even a winning campaign, like Mr. Clinton’s; sometimes the results are irrelevant in the rush of real-world campaigning.
This discussion, still early, is bubbling up in journals like The American Prospect; research organizations like the Center for American Progress, The Third Way and the Democratic Leadership Council; a wave of new books; and, especially, among bloggers who are demanding that the party become more assertive in fighting for what it believes in.
That they need discussions that are still “bubbling up” says almost everything. That “sometimes those debates result in a consensus and even a winning campaign” says the rest. They don’t win because they aren’t coherent and they aren’t coherent because they’re so self-focused. The last thing I’d call them is focused on “the greater good.”
This discussion of first principles and big goals marks a psychological shift for many in the party; a frequent theme is that Democrats must stop being afraid, stop worrying that their core beliefs are out of step with the times, stop ceding so much ground to the conservatives.
That’s the first thing they should be worried about. Their “core beliefs” are “out of step” with America. A huge wing of the Democratic Party is pacifist. That won’t sell in wartime, especially when people hear John Murtha talking about “immediate redeployment”, John Kerry and Barb Boxer demanding timelines for American troop withdrawals and Howard Dean telling a San Antonio radio station that “we can’t win” in Iraq.
It’s hard selling their message to mainstream America when we hear about the 9th Circuit ruling that “under God” shouldn’t be part of the Pledge of Allegiance or when justices in Massachusetts mandate gay marriage or when Cindy Sheehan talks about getting Israel “out of Palestine.” People know that that’s whacked thinking and don’t want that type of person representing them in Washington.
William Kristol, a leading conservative thinker and editor of The Weekly Standard, counters that parties are ultimately defined not by big visions from intellectuals but by real positions on real issues. “Foreign policy is critical,” said Mr. Kristol, whose magazine was considered an important influence on the Bush administration’s foreign policy. “Do they share a basic understanding that there is a global war on terror, and Iran is a threat that has to be dealt with? Is the next Democratic presidential nominee going to raise taxes or not?” He added, “It needs to be brought down to earth.”
The answer is “No, they don’t.” They don’t know that. At most, they’ll give it limited lip service. Case closed.
Until national security becomes the centerpiece of their vision, the voters won’t give them control of any part of the government.
Technorati Tags: Michael Tomasky, NY Times, National Security
Cross-post at LetFreedomRingBlog
May 9th, 2006 at 8:28 pm
[...] California Conservative Bush Media Bias Poll Filed in: MSM Bias, Politics | No Comments » [...]
May 9th, 2006 at 11:50 pm
When they mention “core beliefs”, that’s when they get into trouble. You see, they are total relativists, and a relativist can’t have a “core belief” because that would imply an absolute, something a relativist abhors.
That being said, their one true “belief” is that they are always correct, conservatives are always wrong (”right”), and GW is evil and surrounds himself with evil people.
I’ve even had discussions with moonbats about whether murder is absolutely wrong. Go figure.
May 9th, 2006 at 11:53 pm
So, what is our precious RNC then? A party unified in it’s vision and purpose or a pack of misfits extremely susceptible to special interest money? Two words: Jack Abramoff. Why are we so unwilling to stare corruption straight in the face and say ‘Hey, our guys screwed up. Let’s take them behind the wood shed and give them a reminder’ instead of ‘Hey, but what about those moonbats, some of them took money too!’. What’s the message here? Do we admit and deal forthrightly with problems (like the stand up people we claim to be) or do we try to divert attention and hope no one notices? Which do you think the average American voter respects more?
May 9th, 2006 at 11:59 pm
Carlos, saying that you’re always right and that ‘moonbats’ are always wrong is basically discounting the way about half of this country votes. You’re basically saying ‘we don’t care about you’. Great way to get people to feel patriotic and want to listen to your views. Personally, I tend to ignore people’s personal politics and listen to the ideas that they bring forth. In my view, neither side has a lock on great ideas. Both sides have some screwy ideas as well. In part, that’s why I’m rather uncomfortable with the current Republican hegemony in DC. But, that’s just me. Finally, to say that all ‘moonbats’ as you call them have one core belief that they are always right, tells me two things: you’ve not me many mainstream Americans with liberal views and you’ve already closed your mind to a lot of different ideas.
May 10th, 2006 at 10:22 am
I am constantly amazed that the Democratic Party can even keep its coalition together. There are just so many directly conflicting groups, with wildly incompatible concerns. Right now, the only thing keeping them together is their visceral hatred for President Bush.
May 10th, 2006 at 8:36 pm
Matthew, when I wrote “(right)”, it was parenthesized for a reason, that being that it implies being on what is considered the “right” or “conservative” side of the political spectrum. It had nothing to do with being “correct and that’s the end of the discussion.”
As far as meeting many donkeys/libs/moonbats, I was a guvmint worker (enforcing building codes) for nine years, in a blue city in a blue state with a blue county commission and a very blue union who’s sole purpose seemed to be to make sure nothing politically incorrect was ever uttered on county property (including by the public). Yes, I know a lot of “moonbats”, and in fact have worked beside them in the past and do now (in private enterprise). We (the workers I work with now) have many political and religious discussions, and many times they are productive for both sides. I hardly think I’m the closed-minded bigot you make me out to be, at least not for the reasons you state.
What bothers me about their “points of argument” is that they are so unwilling to consider anything that has to do with reality. As a “for instance”:
Reality is that there are evil people in the world, in our society. Reality is that many (if not most) of these truly evil people either cannot or will not change to become productive members of society, but will continue to prey on people they see as weaker than they because it’s easier than going out and busting butt for 8 a day, 5 days a week. Almost without exception, they see nothing wrong with whatever it is they specialize in (murder, rape, child abuse, etc.) and think society owes them the opportunity to accomplish their crimes.
Typically the “moonbat” response is that anyone can be rehabilitated. What they don’t accept is that rehabilitation comes not from the outside but from the inside, and these turkeys are generally experts at manipulation. Given the chance they can convince almost anyone that their lives have changed, they’ve seen the light, and they are willing to face the daily challenges of life on the streets. The con is, it’s a game to them, and one that endangers you, me, my family, and society in general. But because there are anecdotal stories of success, the theorists figure that’s the norm.
Meanwhile, back in reality, the murderer murders again, the rapo rapes again, the abuser abuses again, etc. ad nauseum.
When rehab is unsuccessful, the theorist blames the system and looks for the culprit there. The realist looks to the perp. To a responsible adult, responsibility for one’s actions starts with the person, not the society, family, upbringing, or anything else.
So when one starts from a “core belief” that anything’s negotiable, it leaves a sour taste in my mind about what that person really believes.
March 4th, 2008 at 7:06 am
Tramadol….
Tramadol….