![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Having lost a presidential election, and looking backwards, having seen a large number of electoral losses over the past fifteen years, one wonders what the problem is with the Democratic party. Based on the economy and the war, they shouldn't be losing seats.
But that doesn't speak to the larger issue I think the party has. And frankly, has been having since the latter years of the Johnson administration.
For various reasons, the old New Deal coalition just isn't holding together. And as far as I can tell, the primary effort among the party has been to try to hold together whatever they could, in no small part, by trying to cherry-pick voters with targeted efforts here or there.
What's been missing, IMHO, and what cost the last two elections, is the "Heart". When asked, almost anyone can give you a short comment on what W is about. Or what they believe the Republican party is about. And that's powerful. But can people tell you waht John Kerry's vision was? What the party's mission was? What the democratic party is missing, IMHO, is that narrative.
What's your vision of what America's supposed to be. What's the moral argument for progressivism. In the US, we have a separation of church and state, but that doesn't mean discussion of morality is absent from public life. Or should be. And in the absence of a strong vision for a civic religion foundeded in progressive ethics, morality, and community -- the Right has been free to define Morality in terms of Sex, Abortion and Otherness. The Right has a mission. A mission that I disagree with, but they have one, and it gives them power to sway.
So, I think that's the real challenge for the Democrats. What is your mission? Why do you come to serve in public life? What is your vision for America? And then, only then, do you talk about the programmatic effort to enact that vision.
I think back to my financial situation. I've got money. I've got people who are supposed to be taking care of my money. The details matter, but I don't care nearly as much about the details as I care about the overall goals that we've set. Having established that I know what the vision is, and that we're mostly on the same page, I can generally trust my guys to take care of the details I don't have the time to handle myself.
But I can look at the voting map, and say with some degree of confidence, that I don't think a lot of America is particularly comfortable with whatever passes for vision coming from the Democratic party. And consequently, they're not voting for it.
The answer isn't for the Democrats to move left, or move right, or find a fundamentalist, or what have you. The answer is to go back to the beginning, to go back to that Mission Statement. And to articulate a compelling, relatively coherent, progressive vision for public life that competes with the vision offered by the Right. Because I very much believe there's an audience. Do that, and they'll start picking up seats, counties, and votes instead of seeing old majorities continue to erode.
But that doesn't speak to the larger issue I think the party has. And frankly, has been having since the latter years of the Johnson administration.
For various reasons, the old New Deal coalition just isn't holding together. And as far as I can tell, the primary effort among the party has been to try to hold together whatever they could, in no small part, by trying to cherry-pick voters with targeted efforts here or there.
What's been missing, IMHO, and what cost the last two elections, is the "Heart". When asked, almost anyone can give you a short comment on what W is about. Or what they believe the Republican party is about. And that's powerful. But can people tell you waht John Kerry's vision was? What the party's mission was? What the democratic party is missing, IMHO, is that narrative.
What's your vision of what America's supposed to be. What's the moral argument for progressivism. In the US, we have a separation of church and state, but that doesn't mean discussion of morality is absent from public life. Or should be. And in the absence of a strong vision for a civic religion foundeded in progressive ethics, morality, and community -- the Right has been free to define Morality in terms of Sex, Abortion and Otherness. The Right has a mission. A mission that I disagree with, but they have one, and it gives them power to sway.
So, I think that's the real challenge for the Democrats. What is your mission? Why do you come to serve in public life? What is your vision for America? And then, only then, do you talk about the programmatic effort to enact that vision.
I think back to my financial situation. I've got money. I've got people who are supposed to be taking care of my money. The details matter, but I don't care nearly as much about the details as I care about the overall goals that we've set. Having established that I know what the vision is, and that we're mostly on the same page, I can generally trust my guys to take care of the details I don't have the time to handle myself.
But I can look at the voting map, and say with some degree of confidence, that I don't think a lot of America is particularly comfortable with whatever passes for vision coming from the Democratic party. And consequently, they're not voting for it.
The answer isn't for the Democrats to move left, or move right, or find a fundamentalist, or what have you. The answer is to go back to the beginning, to go back to that Mission Statement. And to articulate a compelling, relatively coherent, progressive vision for public life that competes with the vision offered by the Right. Because I very much believe there's an audience. Do that, and they'll start picking up seats, counties, and votes instead of seeing old majorities continue to erode.
Tags:
no subject
no subject