We are the new media.
 | |  | |  | |  | |  |
By David Rogers
November 14, 2004
The New Editor
No, I’m not referring to the Democratic problem with selecting overly short candidates. If
that were the problem, just not nominating Michael Dukakis would do the job every time.
The problem is not nominating people who are as tall as Dukakis, it is nominating people who
think like Dukakis.
The Democrats lost -- and will continue to lose -- because they were defending too many
bad ideas on a broad front. They need to cut back, concentrate on defensible ideas, and then,
maybe, they might regain some ground. But right now, they seem to be so demoralized, and
so out of touch with reality, that further losses are inevitable.
Like Napoleon in Moscow, the Democrats are simply fighting across too broad a front.
(What do we want? Socialism! When do we want it? Now!)
Obviously, this call-and-response is not a winner.
Compare: (What do we want? An increase in medical transfer payments! When do we want
it? Phased in gradually over ten years!)
Now, that is a doable deal.
But the problem with the Democrats is not just their attachment to socialism. The problem is
that they have attached themselves to every fringe idea that has come along in the last sixty
years. The origin of this problem lies in Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s admonition to “do
something” in the dark early days of the Great Depression. The impression of government
activity, in contrast to the impression of government passivity under Hoover, was central to
FDR’s political and governing strategy. Too some extent, the strategy succeeded then --
strengthening the Securities and Exchange Commission to regulate stocks, and establishing
the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to prevent bank runs. Other programs, like the
Works Progress Administration and the National Recovery Administration went too far and
were struck down by the Supreme Court. And still other programs, like the Women, Infants
and Children (WIC) welfare program and Social Security, while initially popular, have proven
problematic and far more expensive than advertised in the long term.
Regardless of the successes or failures, the FDR style set the pattern for the Democratic
Party ever since, Agriculture regulation and milk subsidies? Sure. Federal Government Health
Care? The more the merrier. Abolishing freedom of association when it offends liberal
sensibilities? Absolutely! Racial Preferences? You bet. Gender Preferences in college athletics
that destroy men’s sports teams? Why not? Women’s Equal Rights amendment? A priority!
Abortion on demand, with government subsidies? Non-negotiable! A special department to
clean up air and water? Fine by us. National control of local education programs? On board.
Tax dollars for windmills? No problem! Golden Cheek Warbler subsidy? Check. Spotted Owl
protection by the national government? Sure. Federal regulation of toilet size? On the list.
Mandated multi-lingual government services everywhere in the country? You better believe it.
Gay Marriage? You betcha!
And on, and on. By being the party of everything for everybody, and never saying no except
when it might lead to defending common American national interests, the Democrats
committed themselves, in the fashion of declining empires throughout history, to defending
an extraordinary stretch of territory beyond their ability to defend all at once.
And so, like Napoleon and the British Empire after, faced with imperial overstretch, the
Democrats began to lose battles. They simply wanted to do too much. Defending every kind
of libertinism and every kind of regulation of private property, Democrats simply cannot
sustain their coalition or marshall their intellectual forces for pitched battle. Too much of a
garrison must be left in place defending abortion and race preferences to allow a successful
offensive for gay marriage.
And so the collapse continues. The only Democrats to win the presidency since the
highwater mark (LBJ) have been Democrats who pledged not to defend all the liberal
territory. And the only one re-elected ceded three vital pieces of liberal turf -- the death
penalty, greater funding for law enforcement, and welfare restrictions.
Kerry sought to reclaim national opposition to the death penalty, and expand into the territory
of gay marriage -- and like Napoleon before him, he has experienced defeat.
There is a lesson here -- no party can be all things to all people, and the attempt leads to
failure with the certainty of winter following spring. In the past, Republicans knew this.
(Bush and Rove appear to have forgotten it for now.) Will Democrats discover it?
David Rogers is a contributing editor for The New Editor.
Paul Geary
David Rogers