Change is a nice concept–sometimes. George W. Bush told us he would bring change, especially to the partisan poison of the Era of Bad Feelings. Little did we know he would end up one of America’s most divisive Presidents nor did we envision he would take the country into its longest war in history and the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Right now the question is whether he will surpass Herbert Hoover or Warren Harding as the worst President of the last 100 years.
Note to Obama people: no matter what your focus groups say, no matter how many people hold pre-printed signs, change is a shopworn political idea and neither a campaign philosophy or slogan. Nor is “Yes I Can.” Besides not being a philosophy, it’s not true. Right now in America, too many people can’t.
They can’t pay their mortgages. They can’t afford $4 gas or grocery store sticker shock. They can’t afford to lose any more troops in Iraq. They can’t afford to dig out of whatever hole they are in, because they are in deep, way over their heads.
Change one word of that slogan and you might have something. Take out that “I” and replace it with “we.” Why? Because only collective action–all of us working together–will get America out of the mess it is in. Using “we” would also imply a more collaborative government–something we have not had for quite some time.
Which brings is to the Democratic Platform. A platform must, above all, be based on an overarching philosophy, a set of principles that will tell voters in what direction the Party wants to take the country. That lack of principles was the major fault of both the platforms of John Kerry and Al Gore. The lack of clear principles enabled the Republicans to nail John Kerry on the “flip-flopper” issue and made Gore appear a flip-flopper when his campaign took so many contrary turns–one week a populist, the next week a centrist.
The Democratic Party has gone far too long without principles. The last serious attempt was the New Orleans Declaration of the Democratic Leadership Council that became the guiding philosophy of Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign and essentially served as the Party’s principles until ex-Clinton staffer Terry McAuliffe left as head of the Democratic National Committee in 2005.
The DLC principles included:
We believe the promise of America is equal opportunity, not equal outcomes.
We believe the Democratic Party’s fundamental mission is to expand opportunity, not government.
We believe that all claims on government are not equal. Our leaders must reject demands that are less worthy, and hold to clear governing priorities.
We believe that economic growth is the prerequisite to expanding opportunity for everyone. The free market, regulated in the public interest, is the best engine of general prosperity.
Most of those principles quite frankly could have come from the mouth of Ronald Reagan, which is no accident since Reagan’s Presidency inspired the DLC.
Today if you turn to the Democratic National Committee site here is what you find on the “What We Stand for” page under “vision:”:
The Democratic Party is committed to keeping our nation safe and expanding opportunity for every American. That commitment is reflected in an agenda that emphasizes the security of our nation, strong economic growth, affordable health care for all Americans, retirement security, honest government, and civil rights.
That is the kind of vision statement you see in too many town halls and school buildings. The first sentence is a vague generality anyone could support. The second is a laundry list like those that characterize vision statements that either could not decide what was most important or tried to make sure everybody’s opinion was included rather than move towards consensus.
The page goes on to state under “Guiding Principles” “Our Plan:”
We have a bold new direction for a secure America. We seek: 1) Honest Leadership & Open Government, 2) Real Security, 3) Energy Independence, 4) Economic Prosperity & Educational Excellence, 5) A Healthcare System that Works for Everyone, and 6) Retirement Security.
As I have said so many times my voice is growing hoarse , for half a century the guiding principles of the Democratic Party were quite clear–and they were not the meaningless drivel quoted above. They ring from William Jennings Bryan’s “Cross of Gold” speech right through Woodrow Wilson’s First Inaugural to Harry Truman’s Kiel Auditorium speech.
Here is Bryan:
My friends, it is simply a question that we shall decide upon which side shall the Democratic Party fight. Upon the side of the idle holders of idle capital, or upon the side of the struggling masses? That is the question that the party must answer first; and then it must be answered by each individual hereafter. The sympathies of the Democratic Party, as described by the platform, are on the side of the struggling masses, who have ever been the foundation of the Democratic Party.
Then Wilson:
We have been proud of our industrial achievements, but we have not hitherto stopped thoughtfully enough to count the human cost, the cost of lives snuffed out, of energies overtaxed and broken, the fearful physical and spiritual cost to the men and women and children upon whom the dead weight and burden of it all has fallen pitilessly the years through. The groans and agony of it all had not yet reached our ears, the solemn, moving undertone of our life, coming up out of the mines and factories, and out of every home where the struggle had its intimate and familiar seat. With the great Government went many deep secret things which we too long delayed to look into and scrutinize with candid, fearless eyes. The great Government we loved has too often been made use of for private and selfish purposes, and those who used it had forgotten the people.
Finally Truman:
The Democrats have believed always that the welfare of the whole people should come first, and that means that the farmers, labor, small businessmen, and everybody else in the country should have a fair share of the prosperity that goes around.
The Democratic Party slowly drifted away from these principles until by the time of the New Orleans Declaration it all but repudiated them. This leaves the Platform Committee and Barack Obama with three options:1) continue to support the New Orleans Declaration, 2) support the principles of the “Democratic wing of the Democratic Party” as exemplified by Bryan, Wilson and Truman, or take the Democratic Party in a new direction.
Reaffirming the principles that made the American century does not mean they cannot be recast to meet the needs of present times. Truman’s vision was couched in the language and issues of his times just as was Wilson’s.
Yet the key idea–that government exists to keep the playing field level–remains the same. The question many of us are asking is does Barack Obama believe in those principles enough to again make them the centerpiece of his platform?
If the Democrats are not to repeat the mistakes of 2000 and 2004 they need to state their principles in unequivocal terms. They also need to publicly repudiate the principles of the New Orleans Declaration just as Woodrow Wilson’s Inaugural essantially repudiated the principles of Grover Cleveland’s Bourbons and Harry Truman repudiated the Dixiecrats.
Barack Obama could become the first Democrat in a generation to affirm he supports a rebirth of the principles that made the American Century; that, above all, he supports the idea of the level playing field. Then he needs to expose the Republican Counterrevolution for what it is-an attempt to repudiate that principle and take the nation back to the days of Karl Rove’s inspiration William McKinley.
Barack Obama’s plea for change has inspired many Americans. Now he needs to spell out the principles that will guide that change. Is he for the DLC or the great Democratic Presidents of the last century? A lot of people are waiting for an answer. November depends on it.
Print Posted by: liberalamerican
