The Can't Deciders

Via Dick Polman's American Debate, Oh, those tremblin' Dems, is a look at the Democrat's dilemma:

Here we are on the cusp of June, and still we find that the Democrats (a) still haven't agreed on what they stand for, (b) still haven't decided whether to highlight those issues where they do agree on what they stand for, and (c) still haven't decided, if they do choose option B, whether they should act now, or in September, or maybe they're waiting for the end of the World Series.

Sounds about right. Those Damn Dems -- a/k/a "The Can't Deciders." Polman discusses a recent LA Times piece about the paralysis and angst with the party, Democrats Weigh Risks of Caution. It's agonizing to read about the agony that the party has in deciding what the party should be and how (or whether) it should present itself to the electorate. As I said before, in Ditto, the Democratic Party is "beginning to exhibit the political version of battered spouse syndrome. They just can't take a stand on anything, for fear of alienating some faction of the party or the Independents or the moderate Republicans."

In a similar vein, Jeffrey Goldberg writes in The New Yorker, Central Casting: The Democrats think about who can win in the midterms -- —and in 2008, in which he dissects the various factions within the democratic party -- liberal, moderate and republican lite, and discusses the problems the Democrats have in coming up with a winnable message (or even one that they can mostly all agree upon). In fact, after reading that article, it's no wonder they are the Can't Deciders! It left me conflicted! Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo sums the article up thus:

President Bush is very unpopular these days and Democrats think they may win back the Congress because of it. But is hating President Bush enough? Or do Democrats need a positive agenda as an alternative to the Republicans? It is thought by some that it might not be enough. Those somes are right to be worried because there aren't as many liberals in the US as conservatives. So trying to frame the election around torture and warrantless wiretaps may not be a good idea. Another reason to be worried is that the white working class, farmers, suburbanites and deeply religious are no longer all reliable Democratic constituencies. But there are some candidates trying to reach out to these ignored constituencies. But will those centrists be forced to cater to the party base and its philosophy of pessimism? It is feared by some that they may be forced to cater.

(See also a number of interesting follow up comments on the article at Talking Points Memo)

In the end, I tend to agree with Polman, in citing the LA Times article, who observes:

Here's the most revealing quote, from an anonymous Democratic aide who hails from the shut-up camp: "If you start to [discuss] big government programs Â… you open yourself up to criticism in all directions, and there's no reason for Democrats to do that now."

You open yourself up to criticism...There's the Democratic syndrome in a nutshell: a fear of taking hits, a lack of confidence in their ability to advocate and persuade.

Just asking: When was the last time Republican strategists voiced any concern that standing up for what they believed would expose them to criticism?

Correct. As the Italians say, Basta! It's time to take a stand already.

Tags: Politics, Democratic Party