For Democrats, a Path Back to Power

For Democrats, a Path Back to Power, a column in the Washington Post by David Broder, got me to thinking about leadership once again. Broder wonders whether Democratic activists will be influenced by a recently the recently released paper, The Politics of Polarization, by Elaine Kamarck and Bill Galston. Broder points out that the path these political scientists advocate aims down the political center. They make the case, says Broder, for "more than ardent anti-Bush rhetoric . . . requiring a revision of doctrine on both national security and social/moral issues." The paper also discusses the importance of region in voting decisions. Broder asks whether Democratic activists, who have so much influence in the party , will follow the authors' logic.
At TPMCafe, blogger Mark Schmitt's post, "False Symmetry" reviews the same piece. He argues that the paper, Politics . . . Polarization, is the wrong solution to the problem. To quote Schmitt,

"Democrats don't need to move to the center so much as to find a sharp and unmistakable way to make clear that we are the centrist party even if we don't change a thing. Ours is the party that wants the dynamic economy that only a strong safety net makes possible, that believes in the strength that can come from finding unity of purpose with other nations rather than pushing them away, etc."

Schmitt is agreeing with a previous post by Kevin Drum, who was unimpressed by the paper, saying,

"And their recommendations? Get tough on national security. Give up on gay marriage and quit opposing parental notification laws. Advocate 'nothing less than a 21st century economic and social policy.' And nominate candidates who are personally appealing.
I dunno. Some of this I'm OK with, some of it I'm not, but it doesn't strike me as a very coherent response to the issues they raise. G&K insist that Democrats need to demonstrate that they believe in something, but the entire paper is rooted in conventional slice-and-dice electoral polling analysis. It's not really clear precisely what they think Dems should believe in or why they should believe in it — aside from the fact that poll numbers suggest it might be a good idea. Color me uninspired. In the meantime, I guess for 2008 we need to find a charismatic midwestern Methodist who's not averse to starting foreign wars. Let's get cracking."

In July of 1982 I attended a workshop on leadership given by Sarah Weddington. She, of course, is the attorney that successfully argued the Supreme Court's Roe vs. Wade decision legalizing abortion. She made a number of points that seem to apply to the Democratic party at its current juncture.

• "Leadership is the process by which people influence others to change." Leaders change the minds of members of the party. Who are the influencers? They are journalists, bloggers, academics, elected officials and party leaders. They must first come to a consensus over the question of whether the party should move more to the center or back to its historical liberal roots.
• "Leaders must be comfortable with being different." The more we try to be like the Republican party, who won the most in recent elections, the less voters will find a reason to vote for the clear alternative. They must have logical and coherent reasons to change.
• "Most of what people remember is a sense of who you are." Remembering what we stand for, what are our core party values, what our legacy has always been, is the challenge the party has faced for ten years or more. Those party elements must be defined and widely understood. This is the strongest argument for elected Democrats putting forth alternative ideas, rather than merely standing in opposition to Republican proposals.
• "A leader's perception of the situation influences behavior, and their view of themselves influences what they do. Behavior varies from person to person and time to time." Look at the disarray exhibited by the current Republicans who know they are in big trouble. We see bizarre behaviors from many beleagured administration and congressional leaders. It would be good to see Democrats recognizable leadership at the same time.
• "Transferrability of leadership is possible in an organization with common goals." In a recent post, I asked who are the current Democratic leaders. I was not able to come up with a very long list, nor were my readers. Whoever the real leaders turn out to be, it is important for them to be proactive, rather than reactive.
• "Leaders are responsible for people, money and decisions." There is no more clear indictment of our current Republican leadership that this simple definition by Weddington. Look at the failures of people elected and hired. And look at the vulnerable Americans who Republicans have ignored in the process. Look at the mountain of money spent on questionable projects, or undeserving special interests. And look at the faulty decision making of these leaders. Surely effective Democrats can find ways to showcase people skills, responsible spending priorities, and rational decision-making capacities.