« WA Gov: Judge offers mixed rulings | Main | Frozen in Hell »

January 20, 2005

Better listen to the Doc

:::steps up on soapbox:::

Maybe I'm wrong about this. But, it seems to me that 9/11 did fundamentally change some very fundamental political dynamics... at least for the short-term. And I think that Bush's choices over the last 3 years have been calculated to reinforce that altered dynamic in a way that would be politically advantageous to him and to the Republicans. And that the Dems, as a group, have largely misunderstood the changed dynamic. Particularly in terms of how they ought to adjust to it so as to minimize any political disadvantage it might bring them.

Today's The Hill has an article about Dem jockeying for the open DNC Chair position within the context of abortion rights.

It seems that Nancy Keenan, incoming president of NARAL doesn't want the openly anti-abortion Former Rep. Tim Roemer (D-Ind.). And some of the contenders for the throne are concerned that Howard Dean might be cruising to victory while they are distracted over whether or not the DNC should be Chaired by Roemer because of his position on abortion.

First of all, I don't see why Roemer's position on abortion should somehow disqualify him from any position within the Democratic Party. I'm not saying that Dems are trying to prevent him from even running. I'm just making the observation that it'd be politically stupid to apply too strict a litmus test to who can or can't apply.

Secondly, given the continued support that abortion rights enjoy with a majority of Americans, it seems incredibly short-sighted for the Dems to get overly spun up over calls for them to ditch abortion rights plank. An elementary grasp of mathematics ought to make that contrived controversy a non-starter. Whether abortion is right, wrong or indifferent, on whatever scale one wishes to apply, the fact remains that it enjoys popular support. And in the realm of politics it's often suicidal to buck popular sentiments.

But that's just one example with which to set up my larger ponderance here.

Tuesday's Christian Science Monitor had a fascinating article on how Ohiowans are getting on with their lives in the wake of a deeply divisive political election that sometimes left family members barely speaking to each other.

Even though it wasn't really a major theme of the article, what struck me about the CSM piece was how apparently more than a few voters chose Bush despite disagreeing with him, sometimes very strongly so, on any number issues.

I think it's a basic tenet of the human condition that in times of crisis and uncertainty (real or contrived) we look for strong leadership, often at the expense of what our common sense might tell us is the wiser path on specific issues. And I think the CSM piece reinforces that hypothesis rather strongly.

Where I think that a lot of Dems have failed themselves is in the notion that they might somehow improve their lot politically by distancing themselves from traditional Democratic positions and moving closer to positions that the Republicans have staked out.

While it's unquestionable that Bush's core support is based largely on his positions on the issues, he didn't win on the issues. He won on the perception that he is a strong leader!

In times of crisis and uncertainty, people gravitate towards strong leaders. If I'm right about that then it goes without saying that the path to political strength for the Dems is via strong leadership rather than by fiddling with wonkish issue planks.

Howard Dean appears to be surging ahead in the race for DNC Chair for the same reason that he surged ahead in the run-up to the Dem primaries last year - strong leadership qualities. It was only after Dems started second guessing themselves, with a LOT of help from Karl Rove & Co., that Kerry surged ahead to win the nomination last spring. And while Kerry certainly gave a strong showing in the finale this past November, nationally the Dems took more lumps on the chin. It was only at the grassroots level that Dems retook some ground from the Republicans. And who made a very concerted effort to contest every election at every level and not give an inch? One Dr. Howard Dean.

There's certainly a place for wonkish policy debates in the current political climate. But, Dems would be very smart to understand that those issues won't win or lose much of anything in and of themselves.

:::steps down from soapbox:::

Posted by Kevin at January 20, 2005 02:05 PM