Another Miracle Cure from an Internet Know-It-All (a reply)

At 1/18/2005 06:19:59 PM, Kyle Michaelis said...

The Schweitzer/Montana mold offers lots of lessons but it can't just be copied and transplanted as the new face of the Democratic Party. First, the expectations of politicians at the state level are very different from federal office. We won't know how Montana really fares in the latter until 2006. Secondly, each election is its own volatile mix and requires a different strategy (NOT message) as the mood of the country lightens, darkens, or approaches meltdown and all-out eruption. Recognizing that crucial element and making it work for us (or even helping to create the most opportune mood) is probably the surest path to success. Tap into the majority's feelings (their hopes/fears), build a single theme that shows you are one of them and share similar concerns, then get creative in explaining how everything you want to do fits under that shared agenda.

Defense might win championships in football, but you don't win in politics unless you score some points. We've got to go on the attack, and that doesn't mean trying to impeach President Bush. We need to stir the pot and reclaim some of the hype by putting forward big ideas of our own. We should drown out the assault on Social Security with a new plan of our own for retirement tax breaks beyond the current system (available only to those who earn LESS than the payroll taxes cut-off). Bush has created an empty bubble from a lot of ill intent and rhetoric with no specifics. Whoever fills in those specifics best will own the debate, and Bush will have little option but to support what eventually emerges. Something will emerge, however...all is not candy canes and unicorns in the happy land of retirement...we either go into a purely defensive posture and pray to hold onto the shirts on our back or we seize this as an opportunity and advance the reforms we want (though we shouldn't give an inch on the facts).

Also, not one of our people should talk about Social Security without bringing the focus to the rest of the federal government's and the entire health care industry's both being in much worse condition...where we should be shaping systemic reforms that will restore faith in these faltering twin monstrosities of reckless spending, price-gouging and middle men. Waiting until the next election year to get our ideas out into the open will be too late. The campaign has already started and we need to be armed and loaded (not to mention comfortable in our new skin) by this summer at the very latest. The bolder Bush gets, the more this becomes a debate about issues...AND THAT'S WHERE WE CAN AND SHOULD WIN if prepared.

Guns are good. Guns are great. But, it's easy to over-estimate the power of gun owners as a voting bloc. These people are first and foremost union members, farmers, etc. They want to hunt and don't trust government but writing them off as too stupid (or "red statish") to understand the difference between a hunting rifle and AK-47 hasn't helped our cause morally or at the ballot box.

It was shameful and hurtful not to go after Bush for letting the assault weapons ban expire. I couldn't tell if that was a sigh of relief accompanying our silence or if that was actually the last gasp of our integrity. A single ad campaign emphasizing the only real use these weapons have, which is the killing and maiming of human beings - mainly police officers, kids and innocent by-standers, is all it really would have taken. This is compassion politics, what we used to pride ourselves at. We haven't lost on gun control. We've given up because a single special interest group scared us away with their voter guide and ad campaigns. When we bow down to the will of those who would destroy us, we are all but destroyed. There's plenty of gray area on an issue like gun control, hence it's easy to blur the lines...but common sense is common sense and communicated as such will win the day. Anything less is not only fearful and weak but just plain lazy.

The Republicans would know how to sell gun control if they wanted to - if it were suddenly political expedient to do so. They'd emphasize the cultural differences between rural and urban gun owners and demonize the hell out of anyone with an assault weapon as cop killing lowlife gangsters. We don't need that latter extreme to get the job done. We just need to talk about families, safe streets, and the myth that responsible gun ownership extends to weapons of mass destruction.

Of course, there are bigger fish to fry. Maybe this one really isn't worth the effort...but only because we've screwed up so badly in its defense. In 10 years, I just pray we're not saying the same about Social Security and public education. How inevitable it all seems unless someone makes a stand.

We don't need a "50 state platform" that allows maximum flexibility and minimum conviction, but we do need to empower candidates to run under our banner as mavericks. Even post-Clinton, we carry the aura of the establishment and it's killing us because the Democratic idea of a maverick is Ben Nelson...one of the safest, most risk-averse politicians out there. Essentially, our idea of thinking outside the box has become a matter of geography - the box being those supposedly comfortable blue states. I welcome Harry Reid's efforts to change that, adding a little perspective and hopefully some new voices to the mix. No single candidate, no single issue is going to break down the walls we've erected in our minds and on CNN. But lots of campaigns with lots of energy and new ideas will chip away brick-by-brick until the dam eventually breaks and the sea of purple prevails.

Stupid color-coded metaphors. I hate them.

Nebraska Democratic Party Blog: Open Thread