2.10.2006

FREE ADVICE FOR THE DEMS: Somewhere way back when on this blog -- and were I a responsible blogger I'd go back and find it and link to it -- I recall observing that the Bush Administration's key vulnerability was not to be found in their ideology, but in their competence, or lack thereof. I remember fearing that Bush 43 simply wasn't smart enough to do the job, all the while hoping that his henchmen -- Powell, Cheney, Rumsfield, Rice, etc. -- could cover for his lack of intellect.

I recently had a similar conversation with Dem friends. In light of all the revelations about the inefficient prosecution of the war, the management (mismanagement) of Katrina, and the ham-handed dealings with K Street, the Dems need not focus on ideological differences. In fact, they can focus on what unites us.

Here's what I think the Dem message ought to be:

"In many ways, we're just like the Republicans. We love our country, and we'll work to support it, fight to defend it, and stay up all night to fix it when it breaks. We believe in freedom, in equality, in democracy, and in the family. We feel an obligation to help those in need, to stand behind our allies, and to be a good global citizen.

"We care about the economy AND the environment, and we know that you can't save one and neglect the other. We believe our richest and our poorest citizens must act responsibly and live by the same rules; and that people of all creeds, colors, and socioeconomic groups have not just a practical responsibility to live in peace with one another, but also a moral imperative to love one another.

"So you see, when you consider Democrats and Republicans, see that by and large we're aiming at the same things. And yet if you look back at the years this country lived under a Democratic administration, under the leadership of Bill Clinton and Al Gore...we actually did more just than believe in these things. We did more than just aim at them. We lived them. These beliefs were our reality, not simply our rhetoric.

"In our hearts, we're all patriots. We're all philanthropists. We're all spiritual people, in one way or another. In our hearts, we're not Democrats or Republicans, but merely citizens. Human beings. All doing the very best we can.

"We believe that George Bush is a good man. We believe he has done his best. And we wish him well and thank him for his service. Now, as we move forward, the question to you, fellow Americans, is not which party has the best ideals. It's which party can best lead us to the ideals we all share. Which party can not simply aim, but truly hit the target."

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

Not a bad message, but it will never happen as long as they look to the likes of John Kerry, Hilary Clinton, Ted Kennedy and even poor old well meaning,(but miserably misguided) wonderfully philanthropic Jimmy Carter to advance their message. There's no question that they need help in delivering a new message and desperately need to find a new messenger. This next election cycle should be very interesting.

The Wife Who Knows said...

The problem with your thesis, my friend, is you assume that people care about the competence of their leaders. They don't, not really. They want someone who looks good, who can talk a good game, and more important, who doesn't make them feel too stupid.

The reason Bill Clinton did so well is that he had the common touch. Clinton is probably pretty much always the smartest man in any room he's in, but he knows how to dumb it down for the crowd. Not surprising when you consider his humble beginnings. So you really have to hand it to George Bush -- despite having a bluer blood pedigree than either Al Gore or John Kerry, he figured out a long time ago that his charm (and daddy's connections) would get him a whole lot farther than his college transcript.

As much as it pains the smart girl in me to say it, if my beleagured party wants to win another national election, we gotta ditch the policy wonks and go with the good 'ol boys. Hillary isn't going to get us across the finish line.

TWWK

Scott Hess said...

I'm thinking that now, more than ever, competence can be a real issue for common people. Clinton, in addition to having the common touch, just exuded competence. I'm not saying charisma is a non-factor, merely that competence is a better issue, a better message to run on than gay marriage, abortion, and even the march-up to Iraq. To the average voter, competence can trump trifling opinions...

The Wife Who Knows said...

If we lived in Germany, I might agree with you. But this is America, land of the least common denominator.


I wish I was, but I'm not wrong about this.

TWWK

Scott Hess said...

Hmmm. Okay. So it's your contention that these are the three criteria for victory in any presidential election:

1) Someone who looks good
2) Someone who can talk a good game
3) Most important: Someone who doesn't make the electorate feel too stupid

Let's look quickly at past presidential elections (in my lifetime) and see how you fare:

Nixon defeats McGovern
1) Not so much
2) Pretty good
3) Not so much

Carter defeats Ford
1) Yep
2) Yep
3) Yep

Reagan defeats Carter
1) Yep
2) Yep
3) Yep

Bush defeats Dukakis
1) Good enough
2) Not so much
3) Pretty good

Clinton defeats Bush
1) Yep, in his own way
2) And how!
3) Yep

Bush defeats Gore
1) Yep
2) No sir
3) And how!

Bush defeats Kerry
1) Yep
2) Still not so great
3) Shazam!!!

Not bad, TWWK. Your theory holds up pretty well...

The Wife Who Knows said...

Thanks for the compliment, I think.

There's no shame in wanting a competent leader -- it's my fondest wish, next to maybe a repeat of the 1984 World Series or another run of the Partridge Family on TV Land...