GregsOpinion.com

Alan Ampolsk a Metaphor Country has another variation on the theme of Message v Messenger that's worth exploring. The launching point of this take is a Joseph Marshall observation of Kerry HQ in Columbus, OH. The slogan that sets it in motion is a big storefront banner that read: "JOHN KERRY-- FIGHTING FOR THE REST OF US."

Now, I'm even a tad confused by that one. Am I one of "them" or one of "us?" How are we defining that? Class, income, race, what? And Columbus, OH isn't exactly one of those "left out" kinda places, it's a fairly bustling middle class college town if my demographic research is correct. Not like a withered old factory town that's gotten the short end of the economic stick, necessarily. So are Columbus folk supposed to see such a slogan and think: "Finally, someone sticking up for me!"? I'm guessing there weren't many thinking that.

But the broader point worth exploring is a combination of Josh's original take with something Alan hits on that I think is worth distinguishing how Dems and Reps deal with matters of message in particular:

Joseph:

It's about time we all admitted that "fighting for the rest of us" is a meaningless platitude, blazoned on buildings as a substitute for political thought, and as a "strategy" to create an "image" for a candidate so he can be "electable".

We Democrats do not need a new "image". We do not need a new "strategy". We do not need meaningless platitudes. We need a genuine presidential candidate. We need a real man or woman with sane and intelligible views about how to run this country who can communicate them with conviction. And we need those views and ideas to be significantly different from those of the Party in power.

Alan:

I'd argue -- as I often do in either/or debates -- that both are true. The Democrats need both a candidate, and an image. They need a strategy, too. All of these are interrelated. The candidate is a kind of message; the message sets the strategy and helps you choose your candidate. Messages aren't just something you say -- they're a filter for opportunities, and a guide to action.

The 2004 Democratic Party stance -- we don't know quite what we stand for, but it's not Bush -- led to a candidate who didn't know quite what he stood for -- but he wasn't Bush.

Greg:

This goes back to Mark Schmitt's take that there is an codependence of message and messenger that is often too easily overlooked in these debates/discussions.

But even beyond that discussion is the realization that not only do Dems not have a compelling bumper sticker definition of our beliefs as the GOP does ... but that that's just our way, and we will have to cope with that in a way that's unique to our political party. The reason? The coalition that makes up the Democratic party is more ideological diverse. This is why some conservatives would love nothing more than to see the parties split cleanly to a liberal and conservative party. And sadly, there are those on the far left who would also love nothing more than that same end result. Surprising thing is, it's a path towards political suicide for the liberals and a recipe for lasting political domination for conservatives. The numbers pretty much bear it out when you look at the breakdown between liberals, conservatives and moderates.

So given that structure and makeup, don't go looking for a bumper sticker that defines us. While the response to that ought not become, as Alan puts it, a "party of white papers," there does exist a happy medium that ought to allow for a party of a brief narrative, however.