A true Opposition
Josh Marshall explains:
This is a critical distinction. The Democrats have been running since 2000 as the "not GOP" party. That isn't what makes a successful opposition - a true opposition is dedicated to giving voters a clear choice, opposing by example. It's not enough to say "that sucks" - you must offer something positive in its place.
I do NOT think that Dems need to compete on "moral values." Doing so only buys back into the Red-Blue dichotomy, with the assumption that we can flip a state if we market the ideas better. But what if some of the ideas themselves are wrong? Or at least, not genuinely representative of the valid concerns of the other side?
Note that the book in the reading list on the left sidebar, The Two Percent Solution, is exacly an attempt to revisit policy solutions from a more results-oriented perspective. Rather than adopt a classic "blue" approach, he advocates a genuinely "purple" method. Whether any of his ideas are workable is another matter, but teh point is that its a fresh way of looking at policy solutions that explicitly rejects the red-blue dichotomy.
Democrats also need to learn how to live with it, at least for the next four years. And that means realizing that for at least the next two years, the President can get passed almost anything he wants to. His congressional majorities are now sufficiently padded that he can even afford a few Republican defections. He simply doesn't need Democrats for anything.
And that means approaching most legislative battles not with an eye toward preventing passage or significantly altering legislation, but placing alternatives on the table that the party will be able use as contrasts to frame the next two elections. In other words, their only remaining viable alternative is to be an actual party of opposition.
This is a critical distinction. The Democrats have been running since 2000 as the "not GOP" party. That isn't what makes a successful opposition - a true opposition is dedicated to giving voters a clear choice, opposing by example. It's not enough to say "that sucks" - you must offer something positive in its place.
I do NOT think that Dems need to compete on "moral values." Doing so only buys back into the Red-Blue dichotomy, with the assumption that we can flip a state if we market the ideas better. But what if some of the ideas themselves are wrong? Or at least, not genuinely representative of the valid concerns of the other side?
Note that the book in the reading list on the left sidebar, The Two Percent Solution, is exacly an attempt to revisit policy solutions from a more results-oriented perspective. Rather than adopt a classic "blue" approach, he advocates a genuinely "purple" method. Whether any of his ideas are workable is another matter, but teh point is that its a fresh way of looking at policy solutions that explicitly rejects the red-blue dichotomy.
Comments