Another eye-opening and enlightening column from Thomas Frank in Salon :We Are Such Losers" (The "Losers" in the title is a reference to Liberals)
The central thesis of Frank's column is drawing parallels between the Obama and Carter Presidencies, primarily in the fact that both men presented themselves as "post-ideological" problem solvers who would work without the constraints of of a constrictive political philosophy in order to bring order and comity within the system of governance. He also describes other similarities such as:
*Both were newcomers who shocked the political system with their success
*Both saw themselves as transformative politicians who would literally break the mold of what had occurred before their term(s)
*Both were attracted to concepts of fiscal responsibility and austerity and sacrificed job growth as a result
*Both men antagonized and disappointed the Liberal wing of their Party
Frank discusses a piece written by Carter speechwriter James Fallows about the Carter administration called "The Passionless Presidency" which basically chronicled Carter's belief that facts removed from dogma could solve any individual dilemma. However, Carter did not have any overarching vision of what the end result of the puzzle put together with the individual pieces would be, since there was no central construct to begin with. Because of his piecemeal approach, Carter was unable to communicate a narrative to the electorate about what he was doing and why and had no goal with which to unite voters.
Here is what Frank extrapolates as a lesson for would-be centrists to be taken from the Carter experience:
The final ironic lesson of the Carter presidency should be a cautionary tale for any centrist Democrat who dreams of striking a “grand bargain” with the right: No matter what conservative deeds Democrats undertake, as Rick Perlstein told me in conversation a few days ago, they will never win respect for it. It was Jimmy Carter, not the Republicans, who enacted the sweeping deregulation of transportation. It was Carter, not Reagan, who recommitted America to the Cold War and who slapped a grain embargo on the Soviet Union after that country invaded Afghanistan. (Reagan is the guy who lifted it.) And yet, in the mind of the public, Carter will stand forever as a symbol of liberalism’s fecklessness.
Frank ends by makes a compelling case that ever since Carter, the Democrats have hung their hopes on a series of "passionless centrists" such as Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Dukakis, and Obama and the Liberal wing has been disappointed and astonished each and every time when their projected aspirations don't turn out to be shared by the human being they are being projected upon.
The central takeaway for me in reading the Frank's column became the title for this Diary- that while it may sound good to be "post ideological" or "bi-partisan", it is impossible to have a successful Presidency, or Administration,or Country or Party if the leaders are not driven by a specific set of visions and values that charts the course and has a set destination, however long that journey may take.
Most passengers like to have a good idea of where they are going before they are willing to get aboard and this is the current dilemma of our party - we are rudderless and directionless and it shows. We have locked the captain in his cabin and asked him not to come out. No one answers when we ask "where are we going?"
No one in charge appears to know the terminus of the trip or if they do, they are not able to articulate it to the Democratic electorate. All we know is it's someplace called Centrism but we don't know where the boundaries are that determine the center. We are allowing another ship, the SS Republican to set the itinerary and we're pretty much just following in their wake.
Democrats - you can still pull this out but you have to think a lot bigger than what you're showing us so far. Tell us where we're going. Get us excited about the voyage again. Pull out of that other ship's wake. Be bold. You've got just a little time left, but you can do it. If you cannot communicate a vision, then we are all sunk.