Well, the Democrats pulled it off. So the question becomes "what happens now?" Well, there are certainly things the Democrats definitely shouldn't do. There has been talk of replacing Howard Dean on the DNC with Harold Ford, who is coincidentally out of work just recently. Dean's cardinal sin, in the eyes of Rahm Emmanuel and James Carville, appears to be that he dared to try and carry forward his 50 State strategy with a congressional election coming up. As we all know, these congressional elections happen only every other year. The time Dr. Dean should have executed his 50 state strategy is right now, after the elections. Ah, but the race for the White House has begun. I suppose Dr. Dean should have postponed his long term plans until after 2008. Of course, then he should really be starting to recruit candidates for those all-important 2010 midterms. Perhaps it would be most convenient for the DSCC and DCCC if Dean would execute his 50 state strategy on a day in January in 2009 and a day in December of 2012. Because Mr. Emmanuel would really like some of that money being used to build permanent field operations to run high-impact attack ads three election cycles from now.
I fear that the Democrats are going to get the wrong message from these elections. Their victory tends to obscure the fact that the party still has some very serious problems that are going to have to be addressed eventually. This victory was decidedly not an affirmation of their ideology, or their organizational skills. But this election has brought encouraging signs. The Democrats have what can now veritably be called the big-tent party. Many commentators have misunderstood the results of this election. It is not that more moderate Democrats were elected (although many were) than it is that a larger variety of Democrats were elected. The challenge for the leadership is going to be keeping the party unified after an election when Bob Casey and Jon Tester ran and won under the same party. But this is what all political majorities must do. If the Democrats want to keep their majorities for the long term, it is important that they keep the very different types of people who voted for them unified in pursuit of common goals. When the Republican coalition lost this degree of unity, they lost their majority. The Democrats have been primarily united by a dislike of incompetence and corruption in the Republican Congress and White House. But these factors aren't long term unifiers for the party. Another unifying force is going to have to replace dislike of a nonexistent Republican majority, and soon.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
1 comment:
Very true, but "big tent" party is precisely the undermining term that subverts political dominance. A party can be "big tent" in every way EXCEPT for ideology. If the Democrats really knew how to maintain their leadership, they would lay out a distinct ideological platform and state that this is what it stands for - tolerate little digression. But alas, the Steering and Outreach Committee doesn't have the fortitude for anything so bold.
Like you said, there needs to be something to fill the void. I agree with Pelosi's "hundred hour plan" because it is blatant proof of Democratic progress. Leadership is not about appeasing the populace (like Congress) nor ignoring them (like Bush), but by convincing the populace of what is necessary to accomplish, and the best way to do this is by affirmative example.
You are right about Howard Dean in that his "radical" policies are what will keep the party afloat. I would also like to see the same reasoning applied to the Majority Leader race, although this is less of a concern than the media portrays it.
Post a Comment