MotherJones.com | MoJo Blog - Social Issues and Political Commentary: Who Needs a Unified Message?

« Global warming...still happening! | Blog Index | Church Tries New Approach on Pornography »


Advertisement
recent entries WMD Terrorist Attack "More Likely Than Not" by 2013, Says Report Obama Takes Initial Open Government Step South Texas Indictments of Cheney, Gonzales Dismissed Harvey Milk: Local Legend or National Figure? Bush Earns Medal for AIDS Efforts If Only Those Dead Indians Hadn't Been So Cowardly The Curious Retention of Robert Gates Picking Up the Pieces: A Sober, War-Time National Security Cabinet Takes Shape Major League Baseball Catches Outsourcing Fever

Who Needs a Unified Message?

Via Jacob Weisberg's Democratic-bashing article in Slate (and this wasn't one of the good Democratic-bashing articles, attacking the minority party on substance for being too filled with pro-corporate moderates who back bad bankruptcy bills, harmful abortion restrictions, and defeating the Kyoto Protocol; no, no, it was one of those bitchy "insider" pieces where we learn that Harry Reid is "colorless," Nancy Pelosi is "Washington's answer to Barbara Streisand," and Howard Dean stands for "incandescent rage"—in other words, sheer wankery), here's a New York Times piece that talks about the problems with the Democratic Party's electoral strategy:

From Arizona to Pennsylvania, from Colorado to Connecticut, Democratic candidates for Congress are reading from a stack of different scripts these days.
At the Capitol in Hartford the other morning, State Senator Christopher Murphy denounced the "disastrous prescription drug benefit bill" embraced by his Republican opponent, Representative Nancy L. Johnson.

Jeff Latas, a Democratic candidate in an Arizona race, is talking about the nation's dangerous reliance on oil imports from the Middle East. Ed Perlmutter, a Colorado Democrat, says he is running against "the arrogance and cronyism" displayed by Washington Republicans.

In this context, the fact that all these Democrats are saying different things is a "problem" because the Democratic leadership in Washington wants to nationalize this race, since that's what Newt Gingrich and the GOP did in 1994 and, for whatever reason, that's the model. I don't know if it will work or not—real political analysts can speak to that—but from a small-d democratic perspective, it doesn't seem so bad that different (big-d) Democratic candidates are running on different things.

The House, after all, is set up so that each member of Congress represents a single district. I'd prefer we had something like proportional representation, where people really did vote for national candidates, but that's just not the case, and under the current system, if people in Connecticut have different concerns from people in Arizona, well, then it seems quite natural for representatives to talk about those local concerns. Maybe Christopher Murphy's constituents don't care about "arrogance and cronyism" but care a lot about the prescription drug bill. Shouldn't they be able to elect someone who pledges to fight for that issue? Same with the war—if people have varying views on when and how the United States should pull out of Iraq, shouldn't they be allowed to elect a Democratic Congress (if they elect a Democratic Congress) that reflects that disagreement, to some extent? Maybe there are counterarguments here, but the obsession in the media with Democrats having a "unified message" seems a bit bizarre to me.

Posted by Bradford Plumer on 03/08/06 at 2:12 PM | E-mail | Print | Digg this | de.licio.us

Comments

I'm afraid the article you just bashed John Dickerson for writing is not by him but by his colleague at Slate, Jacob Weisberg. I discovered this by clicking on the the link you provided.

Dickerson himself has written a nuanced article, "Democratic Daydream, Can the party match the 1994 GOP takeover?" at http://www.slate.com/id/2137685/ which looks at the strategies of both parties and actually recommends that Republican's themselves shoud unify behind their president if they wish to win. On the other hand, he is careful to enumerate many of the administration "screw-ups that have cost them politically."

It is one thing to take responsibility for the opinions and analysis one has written; it is another to be held responsible for another writer's words.

Posted by: elisabeth null on 03/08/06 at 7:11 PM

The power of a unified message is clear and unmistakable: The Bush Administration is corrupt, criminal and abhorrant to our Democratic principles.

By viewing the newly released video 'Loose Change, 2nd Edition' by three SUNY Oneonta students, America can decide if the official version of 9/11 is true or not. A unified message will undoubtedly emerge: We have been misled, again and again, and yet again.

The unified message the Democratic Party must put forward over and over, is to hammer away at all of the criminal and unthinkable ways this administration has gained and stayed in power.

How about the 300,000 voter registrations in Ohio that were purged from the system prior to the 2004 election (Columbus Free Press)?

'Loose Change, 2nd Edition' is a very good place to start, since the entire foriegn and domestic policy of this nightmare of an administration, is based on the 'official version' of 9/11 being true.

Posted by: Peter Phippen on 03/09/06 at 4:55 AM

"It is one thing to take responsibility for the opinions and analysis one has written; it is another to be held responsible for another writer's words."

Right, thanks. It's fixed now.

Posted by: Brad Plumer on 03/09/06 at 10:39 AM