AUSTIN,
Texas -- I have been collecting material for a series of columns on the
peppy topic, "How Do We Fix This Mess?" The news is dandy in
that there are a lot of a sound ideas being passed around. Really serious
messes, like the one this country is in, do not, in my experience, have
simple, definitive solutions. And if they do, such solutions are politically
impossible. We are looking for progress, not perfection, so anyone who
tells you the entire tax code should fit on a postcard is a bona fide,
certified, chicken-fried moron.
But listening to the Democratic debate on what to do now, it seems to
me some of the brethren and sistren are asking the wrong questions. The
question is not, "How Do We Win?" That's a technical question
that comes after, "What the Hell Can We Do About This Disaster?"
I personally think some good ideas and a plan should come first -- and
to this end, let me chime in on a note of agreement with some Actual Moderates,
William A. Galston and Elaine C. Kamarck, a couple of Clintonites still
carrying on in that old Third Way that was good enough for Bill C.
They are opposed to putting too much stock in the political strategy of
"reframing" issues as advised by the linguist George Lakoff.
This seems to me merest common sense, and I'm not sure Lakoff himself
wouldn't agree. Frank Luntz, the focus-group king and message-meister
who keeps the Republicans all chorusing the same carefully worded talking
points, is indeed a large part of the R's win strategy. But I think the
reason R's have been successful in selling rotten policies that really
hurt people is not so much because of clever wording as because Democrats
haven't stood up and pointed out what was happening.
Believe it or not, there is a certain charm to simply telling the truth,
and even to telling the truth simply. This emperor isn't wearing any clothes,
and the people who are pointing that out now that Bush's approval ratings
are at 37 percent, but who were nowhere to be heard when he was at 60
and better, are maybe not the people we should be looking to now.
Which brings us to the Democratic Leadership Council and the Al From-Bruce
Reed take on what we should do now. The DLC is regularly condemned as
being Republican Lite, but it seems to me its problem is being Light Lite.
The From-Reed proposal is security, values, opportunity and reform --
a perfect symphony of the obvious. I do like their Opportunity ideas:
-- Create high-wage jobs by making the United States the top exporter
of energy-efficient products.
-- Cut $300 billion in subsidies, and invest it in innovation, education
and growth.
-- Pass tax reform to replace 60 tax breaks with four: college, homes,
kids, universal pensions.
The problem comes when you look at their reform initiatives -- lobbying
reform to close the revolving door and a ban partisan gerrymandering.
Uh, how about we address the problem that our entire political system
is corrupt, that it has been corrupted by corporate money, and that we
have government of corporate interests, by corporate interests and for
corporate interests -- and that we really need to change that, instead
of trying to raise more corporate money than Republicans?
David Sirota, a stout liberal attacking from the other side, decries Partisan
War Syndrome, which he defines as beginning with the assumption that substance
is irrelevant when it comes to winning elections and "far more damaging
to actually building a serious, long-lasting political movement."
I like people who think like that. Bob Borosage, director of the Campaign
for America's Future, offers a "Real Contract With America"
in the current issue of the The Nation. He has some excellent ideas, and
I'll discuss them more later. Like the others, Borosage emphasizes Making
America Safe and Real Security for America. What you find across the Democratic
spectrum is agreement that the Bushies are hopelessly inept at homeland
security. Essentially nothing has been done to protect the ports, and
almost no progress has been made on helping first responders and improving
public health capacity, despite all that money spent on small towns in
Wyoming. The chemical plants are obvious targets -- but heaven forfend
that the Bushies should force their dear friends in the chemical industry
to spend money on public safety.
For me, the most annoying suggestion being made is that Democrats somehow
need to claim or reclaim patriotism or to do something to let folks know
that we, too, love our country. I find that hideously offensive. I have
always thought the only way to respond to Republican statements and implications
questioning the patriotism of non-Republicans is with a good swift blast
of venomous anger.
How dare they imply that opposing war in Iraq calls one's patriotism into
question? Take the offensive. Anyone who would use that kind of slimy
attack sullies America, where dissent is honored, respected and, Lord
knows, needed.
The contemptible, petty, little would-be Joe McCarthys need to understand
what love of country really means -- love of the highest and best in America.
Never to be confused with "pre-emptive war" over nonexistent
weapons and certainly not with using "democracy" to sell a rotten,
failed war.
