The thread title is a quote from Kos's midday diary today. He has stated this (what I consider) obvious point several times since last night in regards to Creigh Deeds and the other elections yesterday. I always think that Markos is at his best around election time, because he's more of a political strategist at heart than a policy wonk, and seems to have an excellent grasp on what flies and what doesn't when it comes to getting more and better Democrats elected.
But when it comes to the title of this diary, why is it that what's good for the goose apparently is not good for the gander?
I apologize in advance, because I don't necessarily have a lot of answers to the questions I'll pose here. It's one of the things that bothers me about DK. When I have a question, and I know that the most knowledgeable people on the subject inhabit this cyberspace, there is not really a mechanism for me to start a discussion on a topic the way I can at a messageboard, where the answers may be less thoughtful or informed.
Anyway, the thread title is clearly true as it relates to Democrats and the tendency of many elected Dems to wuss out and try to occupy the political center rather than trying to stand strong and rally the base come election time. We've seen it over and over again for at least a generation, going on two.
But in the same breath, we can also talk about how the teabaggers are trying to reform the GOP by taking sledgehammers to the foundation, and we sit back with a hearty laugh as they get more and more radical candidates nominated and shout down their more moderate and electable candidates.
So why is this so?
I believe both sentiments are well founded and supported, but I'm still struggling intellectually with WHY it is that when the Democrats play to their base it's a winning strategy, and when the Republicans do the same, it's a recipe for disaster. Has it always been this way, or is it a unique circumstance to the times we live in? Can the blanket statement by Kos be taken too far on either side as to make it untrue?
Is it as simple as that the Democratic base is now, and has always been, wider than the Republican base, because our values and policies are more in line with the values and interests of a larger slice of the population? While Republicans need to cobble together electoral coalitions of people with disparate and often contradictory interests (evangelicals, hawks, economic conservatives, etc...), Democrats need only adhere to that most basic value of doing right by the greatest number of people to be successful in building a majority of the electorate.
This is quite a basic and important lesson for all of us if it is truly the case. "Do what is best for the most." Is that not what "Democratic" is all about, when you get right down to the heart of it?
Of course, I think it's also a factor in what cripples Democrats at times when they become elected officials. Republicans are much more willing to see legislation as a matter of "do we have the votes/power to make this happen?" They believe in the "Republic", which is a government of men elected by [the "people", however that is defined] to represent them, but there is only loyalty to the actual people who elected them, not those in their constituencies who voted for their opponents. Democrats believe in "Democracy", and get caught up in questions of whether they are adequately representing all or the most of the constituents' interests, and when push comes to shove, they're a lot less wiling to play procedural games to ram something through with their "power" to do so.
I got a tad off topic there, but I'll finish with a final question. If we believe that the path to victory in 2010 involves sticking to our core policies, pushing our agenda through Congress and into law, and rallying our base to activity and excitement, and not pussyfooting around with pipe dreams of bipartisanship and moderation, then who is the person who can effectively deliver that message to those who most need to hear it?
I have this dream of President Obama calling the entire Democratic caucus of both houses into a room and hammering this lesson into their thick skulls that not only would this be good for America, not only would it be good for the Democratic Party, it is in their OWN INDIVIDUAL ELECTORAL SELF-INTERESTS to show some spine and do what is right. To do WHAT IS BEST FOR THE MOST. They will be rewarded for it with re-election.
Unfortunately, while I know Obama has the power to do this, I don't think he has the will do it, because for all his fine qualities, he is one of the biggest "bipartisan" wankers in Washington, or at least he plays one on TV.
So who does it, and how? We need to get the message across.