Centerfield

Economist Cover Story: Can The Democrats Get Their Act Together?

The Economist is the only magazine I read with any regularity because of its lack of the petulance, rigidity, predictibility and partisanship of most other magazines.

This week they take a fair, at times unfair, and sobering look at the Democratic Party.

These quotes best sum up their point of view (and mine):

Two years ago, this newspaper narrowly favoured Mr. Kerry's incoherence over Mr. Bush's incompetence. Since then, Republican incompetence has exceeded even our worst fears. How depressing to report that Democratic incoherence has soared too. America deserves better.

...if the Republicans reek of decay, the Democrats ooze dysfunctionality: divided, beholden to interest groups and without a coherent policy on anything that matters to America.

(The GOP) that once prided itself on businesslike pragmatism has become synonymous with ideologically skewed ineptitude.

So we have disgust with both sides for a lack of realism, principle, integrity, honesty and real leadership. As they put it elsewhere in this issue in terms of rhetoric and communication with voters:

a veritable Hobson's choice: the droning inanities of John Kerrry versus the scripted platitudes of George Bush.

But the meat and potatoes is on the pressing issues and realities of a Dem-controlled congress in 2007 in terms of predictions and hard questions from the Economist:

They see no real difference in terms of practical ends on Foreign Policy...just means. Dem incoherence on this is their worst obstacle since public faith in the GOP vs. terrorism has become a non factor.

The economy is where things get juicy but still depressing. GOP budget deficits and profligate spending are clearly an advantage...especially in light of looming budget busters in Social Security and Medicare. But the Dems are high on critique but low on clear alternatives. They're pressing for "PAYGO" policies and a 2001, 2003 tax cut repeal of the richest. Yet, they propose little else on the revenue side while calling for more spending in certain areas like subsidized savings for 100 mil of the least well-off, widened eligibility for Medicaid, tax credits for health costs along with an increase in Minimum wage. Cautious yet expensive ideas.

An one Dem consultant said, the real solutions to these budgetary problems are nowhere near the table for anyone and simply not "palatable" to voters. Yes, blunt honesty and pragmatism is admired but not wise in politics.

In education, they point out good ideas from independently aligned think-tanks like the Hamiltion Project. Supporting these measures on stricter teacher qualification would anger the unions but it would send a good message that they'll go some its base on principle.

Speaking of special interests, they applaud Schweitzer, Montana's new Dem governor, for telling narrow interest liberal groups to take a back seat. It worked. He won. But it's doubtful Dem leaders will do the same and take a more practical stand on popular positions that go against the rigid agendas of some these groups. However, they need to be more vocal for the one's that resonate in the areas of envirnment/global warming and civil rights.

Economist Fear: there's concern of overly protectionist measures from Dems on areas of trade. Action for "fair trade", the magazine opines, is cloaked protectionism by demanding standards poorer countries could not meet without increased prices for american consumers and higher unemployement abroad. Tricky topic. It's also where the Economist's agenda is most clear.

But the most promising area is in terms of checks and balances where a divided government would lend itself to some vetos and legislative battles...perhaps resulting in decreased spending. But it's also an area where Dems could find themselves between a rock and hard place, if they wind up fighting for more spending after blasting the GOP record on it. In which case, a clear opportunity to redefine themselves will be wasted and they'll be back to where they started in no time.

One final message to the party is not become, out of Bush Hatred, a diametrically opposed faction to everything that Bush is..namely as an isolationist, protectionist party. This is bad for policy and messaging.