|
Dubya
|
Let's talk, fellow Democrats
Alright, this is directed at my fellow Democrats, but I'm sure some independents and Republicans won't be able to resist giving their opinions as well.  Anyway, I really enjoyed this editorial, it gave me a different perspective on our current situation. Let me know what you all think...
Quote:
A Present for Democrats, If They Can Accept It
By Bruce Reed
Sunday, December 21, 2003; Page B01
As you take pity on the less fortunate this holiday season, you might add Democratic presidential candidates to your list. Over the past month, they have watched George W. Bush bask in the reflected glory of 8.2 percent economic growth, the Dow Jones Industrial Average going back above 10,000, a new Medicare prescription drug benefit, a surprise Thanksgiving visit to the troops in Iraq and the capture of one of history's most wanted villains. At first glance, the nomination that 10 candidates have chased so hard in 2003 hardly seems worth having in 2004. I heard some of my fellow Democrats moaning last week that if Bush gets to campaign on peace and prosperity, what's left for us to run on? Gay marriage?
But before we Democrats curl up in the fetal position, we might consider a heretical thought: Amid all this good news for Bush and for America, there might be some good news for us, too. In fact, if Bush's uptick in December 2003 forces us to focus the election on what Democrats can do better, instead of just what Republicans have done wrong, we will have a stronger, more durable case to take to the voters in November 2004.
There's no reason Democrats should be crying in their chardonnay over Bush's run of good fortune. To begin with, much of what looks like bad news for Democrats isn't bad news at all. Take Medicare. Democrats are right to be dismayed by what's in the new Medicare law and how the Republicans ramrodded it through Congress, but wrong to worry that the president has stolen our issue. In each of the last three elections, prescription drugs was supposed to be the Democrats' silver bullet, yet we came up short every time. The new benefit doesn't even take effect until 2006, and polls show it's already unpopular. Maybe it's Republicans' turn to lose an election on that issue.
Saddam Hussein's capture is an even clearer example of how Democrats don't always know what's good for them. Former governor Howard Dean got himself in trouble for saying that Saddam's capture didn't make America safer. Not only is such a statement silly, it's against our interests. Most Americans feel safer having Saddam in custody and guess what? That's good for Democrats. Bush's reelection campaign is predicated on scaring people into thinking the world is so dangerous we need him to keep us safe. The safer Americans feel, the less they'll think they need a guy like Bush to defend them.
Yet within hours of Saddam's capture, Democrats had moved onto the next talking point -- "But what about bin Laden?" -- while privately dreading the headlines Bush will get if he tracks down Osama, too. The great irony is that every Democrat ought to be praying that our troops do find Osama bin Laden -- the sooner, the better. Our country and the world will be safer for it, and Americans will have room for other worries.
In fact, Democrats can only hope the Bush White House will make this a December to remember. Any president who runs for reelection on his record might as well hang a banner on the White House that says, "Mission Accomplished." That's bound to backfire. Voters who still have problems they want their president to solve will resent hearing about all he has done -- or worse, voters might agree and decide to give the president a gold watch, the way Britons retired Winston Churchill after he won them World War II. Crowing is a particularly dangerous blind spot for the Bush team, which seems to think hubris is the state flower in Texas.
The truth is, presidential elections are never an up-or-down vote on the incumbent's record, unless a president fails beyond hope of redemption (like Herbert Hoover) or succeeds beyond dispute (like Franklin D. Roosevelt). The record is usually mixed, and heavily discounted by Election Day. Most voters are less interested in what the incumbent has done for them lately than in what either party's candidate pledges to do for them next. When I worked on Bill Clinton's reelection in 1996, few voters knew that he had expanded the Earned Income Tax Credit or signed a law to put 100,000 extra police on the streets. They voted for Clinton because they liked the direction he wanted to take the country -- building that "Bridge to the 21st Century" -- better than Bob Dole's attempt to recapture the good old days.
I've heard Clinton say it a hundred times: "Elections are about the future, not the past." That's a battle Democrats can win, even against a popular incumbent, because Bush's best days may be behind him. This White House believes timing is everything. The trouble is, sacrificing its ability to solve tomorrow's problems to gain today's headlines will leave it worse off over the long haul. Bush paid a heavy price for three years of tax cuts and one strong quarter of economic growth that may well be forgotten next November. Now the country is too broke to afford him a second-term agenda. With record deficits instead of a surplus, he has no money to propose a new round of tax cuts or a serious plan to strengthen Social Security. Bush is like the baseball team he once owned, the Texas Rangers, who spent too much on a long-term contract for Alex Rodriguez and now can't afford the new stars they need to win. As The Post recently reported, the Bush White House is desperately looking for a cheap second-term vision, and considering ideas like a return to the Moon that will leave beleaguered middle-class voters wondering whether to laugh or cry.
The country's future, even more than its present condition, is Bush's greatest weakness and Democrats' best chance in 2004. A somewhat better economy and a safer world won't be enough for Bush if he lacks good answers to the other problems on Americans' minds.
Nothing in the past month has shored up that fundamental chink in Bush's armor: In the everyday lives of most Americans, more problems cry out for help than when Bush took office. Middle-class families face the sharpest increase in college tuition in a quarter-century. Health care costs are soaring for businesses and workers, with no end in sight. Incomes are flat and the job outlook is uncertain. Most people have bigger mortgages and smaller nest eggs. Even seniors, supposed beneficiaries of the Medicare bill, are more worried about how they will pay for prescription drugs than they were three years ago. Democrats have better answers than Bush -- or should be embarrassed if they don't -- to all those questions. Of course, none of these problems will elect a Democrat until we make solving them our central mission in 2004. But don't count on it. The reason some Democrats are moping so much about Bush's good news is that it blunts their whole strategy of turning 2004 into an unpopularity contest and hoping events go from bad to worse.
When will we ever learn? Republicans at least have an excuse for not running on a coherent domestic vision: They don't really believe the purpose of government is to solve problems. Democrats have no such excuse. Solving problems is our reason for existence. It's what we do.
Bush's good month should be a slap across the party's face to make us remember why we became Democrats in the first place. It wasn't to feed off Republicans' troubles or hope for the worst for America. Most of us chose the Democratic Party because we wanted to roll up our sleeves and get to work trying to give every American the opportunity to build a better life. Unless we campaign for our best ideas now, we'll never find our way back to power, and we wouldn't do the country much good even if we got there.
If Democrats sit around pining for bad things to happen, they will -- to us. So cheer up, Democrats! The bad news is, thanks to George W. Bush, America still has plenty of problems. The good news is, the country is ready to get behind a political party that spends its time worrying how to solve them.
Author's e-mail:breed@dlcppi.org
Bruce Reed is president of the Democratic Leadership Council and editor of its magazine, Blueprint. He worked on domestic policy for President Bill Clinton.
|
__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."
|