Burnt Orange Report
News, Politics, and Fun From Deep in the Heart of Texas
|
|
Burnt Orange ReportNews, Politics, and Fun From Deep in the Heart of Texas |
|
 |
 |
November 20, 2004Not these DemocratsBy Jim DallasOne of the many problems (among many), that Democrats face is our inability to market ourselves effectively. Granted, it's time to turn around the Democratic brand name. But let's face facts: we're not going to accomplish a lot with a little bit of magic fairy dust. Looking at the "Brand Democrat" logos put out, my Republican acquaintances (naturally, laughed). That was expected, because they're the folks you can't convince. Remember Jesus's parable about the seeds. Moreover, though, some on the left found the "Brand Democrat" things to be, at best, a bit hokey. To wit, "We Won World War 2"? Come on, America won World War 2. Franklin Roosevelt won World War 2. The kind of Democrats who used to inhabit Washington in the early 1940s won World War 2. The kind of Democrats that now run the show did not win World War 2 (so they say). And the same for domestic agenda items. "Civil rights came about because of the civil rights movement!" Labor rights? Social security? Blame the Wobblies and the pinkos for those. Now, I'm not bringing these points up because I necessarily agree with them, but the point is this: looking in the mirror, are we the same sort of folks who would be able to accomplish any of the sort of things Democrats used to accomplish? The temptation is to say "no, because unlike previous generations of Democrats, frankly, we suck." And that temptation can be an awfully strong one. Nonetheless, I happen to think the answer is not "no," but "yes, we are!" But the way to go about proving that isn't going to be through the magic of marketing. The way we prove that we rehabilitate our party's image is to shoot straight and shoot often (among other things). There's a certain part of me that thinks that "Brand Democrat" conjures up all the excitement of Diet Sprite. Meditate on that for a moment. (Hint: think about our party's tendencies (1) towards low risk/low reward politics and (2) away from bold, memorable pronouncements.) For what it's worth, I still think that Oliver Willis's idea can bear fruit. But the Washington boys (and girls) really need to get their act together. Posted by Jim Dallas at November 20, 2004 09:26 PM | TrackBackComments
"Now, I'm not bringing these points up because I necessarily agree with them, but the point is this: looking in the mirror, are we the same sort of folks who would be able to accomplish any of the sort of things Democrats used to accomplish?" No. And here's why . . . the current Democrats ran those wonderful moderates and economic progressives out of the party in the name of interest group politics and fringe grievances that would elevat every social "oddity" to the level of a constitutionally-protected right. When the hard-hats (Not the unions, but the sweaty, skilled-labor rank-and-file) and their college-educated kids, the Dems quit being FDR's party. What was it Ronald Reagan said? "I didn't leave the Democrats; they left me." Posted by: Keith at November 20, 2004 09:42 PMA party that only cares about scoring political points will never win. A party that only has ideas, and no willingness to compromise will never win. The Democrats seem to be either worried only about scoring political points (Clinton) or about not compromising (Moore, Dean, etc.). That is one of the biggest problems in the party. Posted by: Drew at November 21, 2004 10:46 AMYeah, it's kinda lame to claim credit for clean air and clean water, as if only Dems care about such things. And it's also transference to say the things we individual Dems care about are also party concerns. Frankly, I don't think the party cares about the poor, for example.
As much as I respect Dean (he'd make a great DNC chair) and Moore (the Thomas Paine of our era), neither won a national election. But Clinton did have and still has values. This is what he said at the dedication of his library in Little Rock: The divide isn't between "compromise" and "no compromise". The true dichotomy is between pragmatism and ideology. And Colorado is moving in Illinois' direction. While the GOP conducted hissie fits over gay marriage and the pledge of allegiance in the legislature, the Democrats offered practical solutions to the state's problems. The Dems ended up picking both houses of the Colorado legislature, a US Senate seat, and one in the House of Representatives. Progressive leaders usually arise where there is at least a recent history of good government. And you have good government when citizens feel that their everyday concerns are not being ignored. Even an anti-abortion NRA member may be tempted to vote for a local Democratic office holder if there is good police and fire protection, the garbage is picked up regularly, and local laws are not too burdensome on small businesses. As the first Mayor Daley was allegedly fond of saying, "Good government is good politics, and good politics is good government." "Putting people first" is what got Bill Clinton elected in 1992. If Democrats follow this advice at every level of government, there may soon be another 1992, or at least a 1974 on the horizon. Posted by: Tim Z. at November 22, 2004 02:36 AMIf the Dems are going to develop a message that moves contemporary voters it needs to address contemporary issues and concerns. It has got to be something more than "We're not the Repubs." These issues could include: - voters rights, making sure that every vote counts and that every voter has a fair opportunity to cast a vote; The Dems aren't going to be able to attract new supporters by looking back one, two, or three generations to highlight their past successes. A big part of the problem with the Dems in Texas is that, up to this year, they have been running on the messages and coalitions that they have used with decreasing success since the 70s. Jeb Posted by: Jeb at November 22, 2004 11:39 AMPost a comment
|
|
|
