 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
Barry Goldwater, the godfather of modern conservatism, once said that
extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. To this day, right-wingers
still remember the power of this blunt message, this clarion call that laid
the intellectual foundation for one of the great ideological movements of
our era. Hailed as launching an unparalleled political juggernaut, it was
forceful, it was straightforward, it was sweeping, it was powerful.
It also lost 44 states. Barry Goldwater was a failure. He may have
fathered conservatism but it was stillborn. Success was left to Ronald
Reagan, a man who once said, "There is no limit to what you can
accomplish if you don't care who gets the credit." and "All great change in
America begins at the dinner table." Reagan's messages were also
clear and powerful but he understood the American middle. Where
Goldwater tried win converts, Reagan tried to win votes. Where Goldwater
peddled ideology, Reagan sold a message. Politics is a practical game
and the American public quickly rejects highly ideological messages as
well as the messengers who bear them. Ronald Reagan wasn't a
success because he was a conservative. Conservatism was a success
because of Ronald Reagan, a man who framed the debate in
non-ideological terms. Most people are not conservative. Goldwater put
the lie to that claim. Conservatism is a success because conservatives
have made it appeal to the American middle. If liberals hope to duplicate
that success, they must do the same.
Many Democrats have noted the party's need for a clear and powerful
message. They are correct. But it is a message that should be bigger
than ideology as Reagan's was, not the narrow extremist message of
Goldwater.
Harry Truman once noted that the American public would always elect
the real Republican over the fake one. A message that appeals to the
middle does not mean timidity, nor does it argue for a watered-down,
GOP-lite facade. Such an idea is bred of defensiveness, fear and the
tacit acknowledgement of the "fact" that most people are naturally
Republican-leaning and conservative. This is not true. Republicans did
not gain power by pretending to be Democrats. Democrats cannot gain it
by doing the reverse.
As noted above, Republicans did not succeed because of the
conservative message. Conservatism succeeded because of the
Republican message. Liberals should not be afraid to be liberals but
they should understand that Democratic success will not flow from
liberal success but the other way around. A Democratic message that
stresses liberal values which appeal to the middle is vital. This
message must be clear, concise, simple and above all, distinct from the
Republicans. In the same way that Republicans win elections by
spotlighting mainstream values that advantage conservatives,
Democrats must also focus on liberal social values that have strong
appeal in Middle America.
America agrees with the liberal values in many areas. Republicans
choose not to fight there. We choose to let them. Fuzzy messages that
make Democrats appear to be something they are not will not win any
more than extremist positions that alienate most of the nation.
Emphasizing where the left and the middle agree is the key to victory.
Would you rather be right or win?
It's a question many on the left ask themselves. And it is predicated on
the assumption many liberals make that engaging in coalitions with
moderates is somehow evil and a rejection of the party's basic values.
Instead the party should stick to its liberal roots and fight the good fight
even when it continually means going down to an endless series of
stoic, principled defeats.
Let's start with one basic, horrifically unpleasant fact about politics. It is
a practical endeavor, not an academic affair. It is not a theoretical dorm-
room debate session. It is a way of getting things done and making
things happen with the ultimate goal of making people's lives better. In
short, it is about policy implementation, i.e. winning. Without the ability
to implement policy, the ability to formulate it is meaningless. You can
have the best ideas in the world. If you do not sell them and get elected,
they do not matter. To implement policy, one needs power, hence the
attainment of power and the use of power must be seen as intricately
connected. In the United States, power is - and has always been -
achieved through one of the two major parties. Hence, coalitions are
necessary. Conservatives understand this. Why don't we?
Many on the left exclude themselves from the process. Why, they ask,
should they vote for a center-left party when they could run to Ralph
Nader instead? The election of 2000 should have answered that
question.
By breaking away from the Democrats’ coalition, the activists who
supported Nader did have an actual effect on policy implementation.
They put George W. Bush and the Republicans in charge of it. That was
the only effect they had and it was the only effect they - or any third party -
could possibly or will ever have had. The full price our nation will pay for
the Naderites' heady enthusiasm for liberal orthodoxy may not be
known for decades. But for those who still doubt, it cannot be said often
enough that third parties are the quickest expressways to irrelevancy in
American politics. If politics is about getting things done and
implementing policies that make people's lives better, then the ability to
acquire power is as important as what you plan to do with it. That ability
does not lie with the Green Party or the Libertarians.
Other leftists have even worse ideas. They are determined not just to
remove themselves from relevancy but to take the Democratic Party with
them. Although center-left ideology is a proven winning strategy, many
on the left still treat any hint of centrism as a form of heresy, as though
any ideological dissent were a polluting impurity to be burned from the
Democratic Party. These attempts to shrink the Democratic base by
excommunicating moderate Democrats are a sure path to defeat.
In America, coalitions are the path to power. Alienating centrists by
radicalizing the Democrats or abandoning them entirely for third parties
because they are one degree out of political alignment with an “ideal”
set of views is the path to Republican dominance for years to come.
So would you rather win or be right? Unless you do both, it doesn't
matter.
How did they win? In 2004, the Republicans ran on a record of almost
unparallelled failure in a nation riven by ill-planned wars, skyrocketing
deficits, unbelievable corruption and untrammelled arrogance. Yet not
only did George W. Bush roll to victory, his party actually made gains in
Congress.
Their secret? Vision. A positive vision and a well-articulated set of
values was the centerpiece of a GOP victory. Sadly, John Kerry
stumbled into second-place with nothing but a list of complaints and
gripes. Their campaign slogan? "W stands for wrong."
The Kerry people just never got it. Most folks, even a lot of Republicans,
knew all they needed to about Bush's dismal performance. What they
didn't know was what Kerry was offering. And that's something he never
really articulated. More disturbing, his clueless campaign didn't even
seem to understand that there was any need to do this at all.
Many Democrats continue to make this mistake. They continue to call
Bush names instead doing dull things like finding a coherent
philosophy or laying out an agenda. Attacking the other side is an
integral part of every political contest but just as important is showing
your ideas and plans and communicating your vision for the future.
Republicans will not lose elections so long as we are determined not
to win them. And that will take a positive vision. Bush's vision was
nothing more than a bluff, a bad off-suit poker hand that would have
folded when called. But Kerry didn't call. Fortunately for Bush, he never
even anted in.
One of the best lines I've ever heard came from an anonymous poster
on a internet message board. He (or possibly she) said, "You don't sell
more Coke by insulting Pepsi drinkers."
Truer words were never spoken. Some people in the GOP are just as
mindless as Democrats portray them to be. Then again so are some
Democrats. The fact of the matter is that most people in both parties
are good folks who simply view things differently. While we should
never be afraid to fight the Republicans and their awful agenda for our
nation, we should be equally unafraid to talk to them as well. More and
more, Republicans are waking up to the many ways in which their party
regularly betrays both their trust and our country's best interests. It is
respectful dialogue that will accelerate that transition and win the
converts we need to make electoral wins a reality. Putting oneself up as
a better and smarter know-it-all hinders the process. As Samuel Taylor
Coleridge once said, "I have seen a great deal of intolerance in support
of tolerance."
Politeness and respect is not just good politics. It's also good manners.
elections?