Centerfield: Red Meat vs. the Vision Thing

November 25, 2003

Red Meat vs. the Vision Thing

Al From and Bruce Reed of the Democratic Leadership Council just published an open letter to the candidates. It's long and a bit complex, but the insights are spot-on.

Here's a piece:

The other recurrent delusion holding Democrats back this year is the notion that if we just offer enough red meat, a stampede of Democratic voters will emerge from an undisclosed secure location and carry us to victory. President Clinton put to rest the false choice between energizing the base and persuading swing voters by winning twice.

So far, the Democratic race has been a shouting match to prove who can't stand Bush the most. It turns out none of you wants to keep him in office! Together, you have successfully reassured primary voters that if elected president, you won't pass big tax cuts for the rich, appoint right-wing judges, work hard to alienate our allies, or keep John Ashcroft as attorney general. Like most Democrats, we don't like Bush either. But we don't think this election will turn on whether voters can pick you out of a lineup based on how loudly you say "miserable failure."

Every election is, in part, a referendum on the incumbent. But this is not a recall election. Americans may have growing doubts about the president's performance, but not enough are ready to join Democrats in blaming Bush for all the country's problems.

Moreover, even if 2004 were a recall election, it's not enough to win the vote on Recall Question 1. You have to give people a reason to vote for you on Recall Question 2. If you go too far trying to make everyone hate Bush, you may only succeed in making them dislike you.

What both parties too often forget is that the only way to succeed in politics over the long haul is to embrace a modern, coherent political philosophy that works. Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson had Progressivism, Franklin Roosevelt the New Deal, Bill Clinton "Opportunity, Responsibility, and Community." In the end, Americans will only think we have a vision if we actually offer them one.

Posted by William Swann at November 25, 2003 03:57 PM

Comments

Oh wow! That was a great commentary! To be perfectly honest, I am so tired of the "beat up on Bush" rhetoric that I have basically begun ignoring the Democratic candidates. I'd start listening if they started saying something productive!

I saw a great comment on Dan Drezners site suggesting that we start a grassroots "Write-In McCain for President" campaign. Wouldn't that be fun? Now there is someone I could vote for!!

Posted by: Heather Feuerhelm at November 25, 2003 06:49 PM

Yeah. I think the comment they made about a 50-1 ratio between Bush bashing and positive plans is about right. Most of these candidates have a plan -- they just don't talk about it much. So their political identity becomes wrapped up in anti-Bushism.

They also tend to go way overboard with it -- saying things that are pretty extreme -- to the point of being in poor taste. I didn't see the last Democratic debate, but the remark I heard from Clark about Bush not visiting wounded U.S. soldiers was in poor taste. Implying, or stating, that he's so callous as to not care about our wounded soldier is ... well, it's insulting and it's also probably wrong.

I voted for McCain in 2000 and I actually think he's better suited now to be president than he was then. I also think some other moderate Republicans would be great -- Colin Powell, Christie Whitman. But we won't have any of them for a choice.

I just saw a piece on the news showing that Lieberman is running ads in New Hampshire comparing himself to McCain and attempting to take on the McCain mantle. He's been doing that more openly lately in a few different ways. You could view it as an obvious strategy to try to attract independents -- but there's also some substance to it, I think.

Posted by: William Swann at November 25, 2003 08:24 PM

What he's saying is so true.

In fact, we've already seen a terrible example of what happens when candidates spend all their time attacking Bush and none explaining what they want with their jobs.

November 2002. The experiment is repeatable if our leadership is stubborn and doesn't change.

The only Democrats that did well in 2002 ran for their offices instead of against Bush.

Posted by: Jon Kay at November 26, 2003 01:35 AM

What he's saying is so true.

In fact, we've already seen a terrible example of what happens when candidates spend all their time attacking Bush and none explaining what they want with their jobs.

November 2002. The experiment is repeatable if our leadership is stubborn and doesn't change.

The only Democrats that did well in 2002 ran for their offices instead of against Bush.

Posted by: Jon Kay at November 26, 2003 01:35 AM

Too bad McCain doesn't switch parties and run as a Dem -- could prolly win the nomination against the Bush bashers.

Posted by: Tom Grey at November 26, 2003 08:07 AM

Great letter. Will one of the nine dwarfs catch on that there is a "Third Way" (Lieberman has already, kind of)? The Dems' future may depend on it.

Posted by: Ron C at November 26, 2003 08:31 AM

Centerfield

A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics

November 25, 2003

Red Meat vs. the Vision Thing