Click on : REPORT: The Politics of Polarization - Download PDF
- All 71 pages!!! - at
http://www.third-way.com/products/index.htm#middleclass-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion — Beyond Polarization (...Confront the current myths of the Democratic Party.)
<snip>As a number of analysts have noted, recent Republican difficulties have not yet redounded to the advantage of the opposition party. One reason is that up to now, Democrats have found it difficult to articulate a compelling message or an alternative agenda.lv Whatever voters may think of the Republican mantra—strong defense, lower taxes, traditional values—at least they know where Republicans stand. They have no such conviction about the Democrats.<snip>
... Relying on language and “framing” can be a surefire recipe for disaster in an electorate that values personal honesty and integrity even more than experience or positions on issues. Stop hiding behind domestic policy and honestly confront the biggest issue of our time: national defense, and especially the use of military force. The Democratic Party must be able to articulate a coherent foreign policy that is based on a belief in America’s role in the world. While this will cause internal conflict in the Democratic coalition, it will not be any more severe than the fight Bill Clinton sparked when he confronted his coalition with proposals for reforming welfare. This task will fall to Democratic internationalists, who will need to convince their counterparts in the party that America can do good in the world and that, for example, stopping genocide in Darfur — a foreign policy goal the left of the party would probably support — will require the same levels of military strength and preparedness as fighting the war in Iraq, a foreign policy goal they do not support.Democrats must emphasize the importance of the American military as a potential force for good in the world, and in so doing they need to engage “Michael Moore Democrats,” who instinctively view American power as suspect. A focus on military strength goes against the grain of many Democrats, who were weaned on Vietnam and have come to see Iraq as a similar lesson in the futility and immorality of projecting U.S. military power, but these views must be confronted if Democrats are to be coherent on this issue in a time of war. Along with national defense policies that reflect patriotism, strength, and resolve, Democrats must seize the opportunity to offer compelling alternatives to current Republican policies concerning homeland defense and the ultimate nightmare of nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists, areas in which the Bush Administration’s efforts have fallen woefully short.
Show tolerance and common sense on hot-button social issues. Democrats are right in thinking that most of America is with them when it comes to the broad outlines of the social agenda. We would bet that when Americans’ religiosity comes face-to-face with their desire to solve personal problems in their own homes and families, the desire for freedom from the State will win out. But Democrats must avoid getting trapped in the extremes. They could continue to support the core of Roe v. Wade while dropping their intransigence on questions such as parental notification and partial birth abortion. They could oppose court-imposed gay marriage while favoring decent legal treatment for gay couples and insisting that this is matter for the people of the several states—not the U.S. Constitution or the judiciary—to resolve. And they could take steps to ensure that while the Democratic Party today may be the home of Americans who regard themselves as secular, it will neither be, nor be seen as, the secularist party. At the same time, Democrats must paint a clear picture of Republican extremists, who advocate a level of government intrusion into people’s lives that conflicts with their desire to be left alone.
Support an economic policy that embraces global competition and a modernized social safety net that protects American workers in a vibrant and churning economy. For all their problems, Democrats still have a strong hand when it comes to economic and social safety net issues. But an electoral strategy that involves waiting for economic disaster is not a plan worth having. Democrats need to keep in touch with the economic challenges of this century, not the last. A serious, forward-looking opposition party would respond to this new situation, and to public concerns, with ideas as large as the problems they address — with nothing less than a 21st century economic and social policy. The reason is this: while no nation can hope to succeed by walling itself off from the world, in circumstances of rising global competition, a vibrant national economy will inevitably involve lots of churning. Businesses will succeed and fail; jobs will be created and destroyed. Average citizens will tolerate this level of uncertainty and risk only if it is combined with a strong social safety net so that they will not lose everything when markets change. The core of this approach would require returning to the notion of social insurance as protection against catastrophe — whether an impoverished old age, or the personal and family stress produced by long-term unemployment, or bankruptcy caused by unaffordable and uninsured health care expenses — while ensuring that every American enjoys this protection.
Finally, Democrats have to pay more attention to the very personal qualityof elections, especially presidential elections, in the media age.Recent Democratic candidates have failed to establish the bond of trust with the electorate that is so essential to modern elections. Consistency, personal morality, and above all authenticity are critical in a media age — which is why the myth of language discussed above threatens to lead Democratic candidates down the wrong path. Time and again we have seen the same story in elections — especially presidential elections. The public says that it agrees with the Democrats on the issues, but it votes for Republicans. In 2004, most Democratic advisors assumed that the steady drumbeat of bad news out of Iraq would hurt President Bush. And by Election Day, a slight majority of Americans agreed that the war was going badly. But they voted for Bush, not only because he persuaded a majority that our Iraq mission (however difficult and discouraging) was part of the larger war against terrorism, but also because he managed to convey strength, certainty and conviction. The presidential vote is the most personal political decision that Americans make. There is a personality threshold which, all too often, Democratic candidates have failed to understand and therefore to cross. In 1988, Michael Dukakis failed to understand how his legalistic stance on a host of hot-button issues, from the Pledge of Allegiance to Willie Horton to anchor Bernard Shaw’s famous question of what he would do if his wife were raped, created an impression of his character that was unacceptable. In 2000, Al Gore, a politician known for his honesty and integrity, could not reverse the impression — created by a series of trivial anecdotes — that he was somehow not trustworthy. In 2004, John Kerry could never transcend the interpretation of indecision and lack of conviction placed on his record in Vietnam and in the Senate. We would argue that of all the tests national candidates must pass, the personality test is the most important. This test may be summarized in three questions that voters are asking and that candidates must answer to their satisfaction. First: Is the candidate a person of strength, with core convictions and the ability to act on them through challenges and criticism? Second: Is the candidate a person of integrity, who displays consistency over time, who tells the truth, and whose words and deeds coincide? And third: Is the candidate a person of empathy, who understands and cares about people like us? It is not possible for us to draw out fully the practical implications of these questions. But some things are clear on their face. Candidates who say only what they think others want to hear cannot display strength. Candidates who shift position on what should be matters of conviction can not pass the integrity tests. And candidates who are far removed from the lives and feelings of average families will have a hard time understanding the daily challenges these families face, or credibly conveying care and concern about them.... Republicans have become adept at deploying a social populist agenda of national strength and traditional values to weld the denizens of corporate boardrooms and NASCAR race tracks. The Democratic Party has not yet found a comparably effective formula for bringing its post-McGovern surge of educated professionals together with the average families who continue to hope for some relief from the burdens and uncertainties of the modern economy. Until it does, national Democratic candidates will remain vulnerable to Republican efforts to portray them as elitists, which has always been the kiss of political death in this viscerally egalitarian
nation.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
