So What's the Big Idea?
No, I wasn't slacking off my affinity for all things Cherny & Baer when I didn't post anything about this LA Times op-ed of theirs. I just passed it over since it struck me as a reformated version of their introductory article in Democracy Journal. But there's something about Andrei's followup in HuffPo that strikes me as more entertaining of a read:
The fact of the matter is that the biggest divide among Democrats today isn't between centrists or liberals, its between Democrats who want to put forward a big agenda to America and those who want to just slide by on the other guys mistakes.I know about that second strategy - I fought against for more than a year while I worked on the Kerry campaign.
But the rift continues and its between Democrats with the courage of their convictions and Democrats who are just plain scared.
As we wrote today, these Democrats are like the 98-pound weakling who lives in fear of the school bully. They will say anything to avoid being stuffed into a gym locker: I don't really believe in anything! I don't stand for anything! Please just leave me alone!
Passing off this sniveling advice is a band of gnome-like "intellectuals" who counsel Democrats to avoid offering any vision or direction for the country and simply to wait for voters to so tire of Republican government that they will turn to more competent Democrats to administer a conservative state.
Don't we believe that Democrats can do better than run on Bush's incompetence and DeLay's crimes? Can't we put forward an agenda that inspires people around the country to rally to our side; that reshapes the political map so we can build a real majority and not just win a couple extra votes to carry Ohio or Florida?
And, by the way, can't we propose some real solutions that would make America and the world better in major ways once we actually win?
Sometimes, I shudder when I think about what Franklin Roosevelt or Harry Truman would think. They broke with the past in major ways to deal with new challenges at home and around the world. They created the New Deal and NATO, the GI Bill and the Marshall Plan. What would they think of these timid souls who think all the thinking has been done and Democrats can offer nothing better than a more competent job administering our conservative political system?
There's certainly something more pointed about this case, so chalk one up for the purpose of blogs versus that of the op-ed pages. But there's sort of an odd dichotomy to Andrei's point and I'm not sure whether I accept it or not. On the one hand, it's not clear whether the 98-pound weakling being described is the consultant class or the far left internet activist base. If it's consultants (a theory that seems to fit best), then I'm not sure they can really qualify as representing "the biggest divide among Democrats." Democratic strategists, maybe ... but not Democrats. If it's a barb aimed at the "Kos Crews" of the world, then I'm not sure I fully accept the idea that they're just waiting for the other side to implode. I mean, I may disagree with a lot of what passes for ideas among that set, but I'm not going to make the argument that they're void of ideas.
Big ideas will, as Andrew & Ken point out, be the biggest game changers in elective poltics. But I'm more of the opinion that the real difference is between those who wish to define those issues from the "center out" as opposed from the "left in."
The self-centered analysis you quote has a lot in common with Bushthink. These bloggers see themselves as Heroes of the Revolution and milquetoast Democrats as Villains -- not unlike the way Bush casts himself and his opponents.
All fail to understand that "middle ground" does not equate to "centrism": it equates to not being on the fringe, that is all. I agree with neither pole, and yet no one who knows me calls me a centrist.
Ideology and motivation occupy a multidimensional space, not a single dimension. Thus dualism remains the dominate and inadequate mode of thinking for all political points of view, regardless of ideology. When Democrats can rise above that they will begin to make real, sustainable progress. I am not holding my breath.
My sense is that Andrei is voicing frustration with the consultant class, the Shrumocrats who counsel Democratic candidates to stand for little and say even less.
The typical Democrat, even the typical activist Democrat, has no idea how pervasive the Shrumocrat mindset is in DC circles. The party gatekeepers fawn over the bland, complacent and compliant candidate who nibbles at the edges and avoids controversy while waiting for a GOP implosion. The problem is that this is putting your fate into the hands of the other guy. A vibrant agenda (and that doesn't have to mean a big-government agenda, incidentally) can engage and motivate voters in a way far different than the usual porridge of attacks on Medicare Part D.