Get em.

Another (nearly) linkless post, ladies and germs.

My cousin, Jonathan Levey, is running for state assembly in California, as a Democrat (I would like to state here and now that the opinions expressed in Noahpinion are totally unrelated to Jonathan Levey's campaign or his views or policy positions). Today I'm going to watch him debate the other Democratic primary candidates. In advance of this momentous event, I thought I'd take some time to offer my own reflections on the state of the Democratic Party.

The Democratic Party is in a fragile and vulnerable state. It controls none of the major branches of government, state or federal. Despite Republican weakness on nearly every front, the Democrats have failed to capitalize. Also, despite the fact that voters consistently support Democratic policy ideas over Republican ones, far fewer people identify themselves as "liberals" than as "conservatives." This Democratic freeze-out has been building for 25 years.

Why? And what do we do? My thoughts.

1. The Democratic Party lacks stratgic focus. In other words, it isn't clear to the American people what the most important issues are to the Democrats. The Democrats have lots of policy proposals but no unifying theme. It isn't clear what Democrats believe in as a group. For example:
* Do Democrats believe that America and American values are basically a force for good in the world? Or do they believe that American values shouldn't be promoted beyond our borders, and that American interference in the world is typically negative?
* Do Democrats value economic growth? Do they value closing the wealth gap? What about when these two come into conflict?
* Do Democrats believe the government should try to restrict the amount and type of sexuality in popular culture? Or do they think the government should butt out of this issue?

I can't answer these questions, and more importantly, neither can most Americans. These questions are at the heart of America's three main policy areas - foreign, economic, and social. If Americans don't know where Democrats stand on these, they don't know why to vote for Democrats. And if they don't know why, they won't.

2. A big part of the reason that Democrats don't have a strategic focus is the presence of deep divisions in the party. Some party members and affiliates (let's call them the "hard left" or "HLs") identify with the international socialist movement - these people generally distrust American influence and values, focus on closing the wealth gap, and decry government control of popular culture. Others (let's call these the "national-greatness liberals" or "NGLs") think American values are good and that American influence should be used to promote them; that economic growth is good if it helps to build the middle class; and that government and social movements should work to restrict dangerous and unhealthy negative sexuality.

3. The HL and NGL movements are deeply conflicting. Most American voters identify much more strongly with the second group, so almost all elected Democratic politicians are NGLs. The international socialist movement also happens to be very weak at the moment. But the HLs are still present in the Democratic rank-and-file, and as commentators. Efforts by the NGLs to shape a strategic focus for the Democrats - such as Clinton's creation of the Democratic Leadership Council - are undermined by HLs. For example, Howard Dean, who was a NGL until a bunch of HLs showed up and started working on his campaign, started calling the Democratic Leadership Council the "Republican wing of the Democratic Party." The Democrats are therefore a house divided against themselves, and they're not standing.

4. The HLs have a heavy presence in the "blogosphere", including the Daily Kos and the "netroots" fundraising movement. They spend most of their time trying to take down Democrats that they see as too "centrist." When NGLs (like The New Republic) take these HLs to task over such antics, the HLs hypocritically accuse the NGLs of being responsible for the infighting that's weakening the party. HLs on the Daily Kos and other sites are often afraid to show their true colors or state policy positions, since they instinctively know that what they really want to do is far out of the mainstream. Thus, HLs mostly focus on attacking others - Bush and Republicans, certainly, but most "centrist" Democrats. The HLs talk a lot about both ideological purity and Democratic electability while being careful not to reveal their own unelectable ideology.

5. The HLs don't really represent modern liberalism or the modern Democratic party. The mid-century Democratic majority was based on an ideology of national unity and growth. Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy and Johnson were NGLs. Also, the "new left" of the 60s grew out of American nationalism, not out of socialism. Civil rights, women's rights, poverty reduction, and other social movements of the mid-century were justified based on American values of equality and opportunity, and on ideas of national unity (we should help the poor because they're Americans too), not on Marxist ideas of class consciousness. The liberal distrust of American influence came from the Vietnam war, but before that, promoting American values abroad was the main selling point of liberals from Woodrow Wilson to FDR and Kennedy. There was never a HL majority in America (or, really, any country). NGLs were responsible for the flowering of liberalism.

6. What Democrats need is ideological purity, but not the HL kind. It's time for some infighting, for the sake of long-term party survival and liberal success. A big part of strategic focus is deciding what not to do. So:
Purge the Hard Left. Put nationalism - the idea of American values and national unity - back into liberalism. Specifically:

* On foreign policy: Make it clear that Democrats support the promotion of American values throughout the world - these include human rights, democracy, and stable free markets. Emphasize that Democrats believe that America has a positive active role to play in the world. Dump anti-Americanism.

* On economic policy: Make it clear that Democrats support the growth and prosperity of a healthy prosperous secure middle class. Economic growth is a means to this end. Education is another. The weath gap doesn't matter - rich people can get as rich as they want as long as the middle class grows and prospers. (Alleviating the suffering of the poor is also important, but this is very cheap, and already mostly done.) Dump socialism like a two-timing boyfriend.

* On social policy: Emphasize that the government and social movements (including religions) have an important role in restricting negative sexuality in our culture (including prostitution, depictions of sexual violence, and porn that degrades women). Children should be brought up to have a healthy attitude toward sex, which means not starting sex too young, focusing on having sex with people they care about and have good relationships with, and avoiding sexually risky behaviors. Push for full social acceptance of homosexuality, by religions as well.

7. The HLs will resist a lot of these efforts. They'll say America is a militaristic state that should withdraw from the world stage. They'll say that the wealth gap is more important than middle class growth. They'll say that governments and religions have no right to define healthy sexuality. And they'll say that any attempt to contradict them endangers "Democratic unity". But in response, we must say: National greatness liberalism is the real liberalism. It's something that worked for Democrats in the past, and will work in the future. It's something we can get behind, and that the American people will get behind.

The conservatives weren't stupid back in the 70s and 80s when they purged the white supremacists, segregationists, fascists and isolationists from their own movement. The Republican party may seem extreme to some, but it's electable. Democrats should make their party equally electable.

There are other important issues that Democrats have to weave into their strategic focus - ways to ensure security without sacrificing liberty, ways to help African Americans get richer and safer, ways to solve the healthcare crisis. These issues can't be ignored. But on some issues, like the ones I mentioned, the need for infighting can't be ignored. Strategic focus is what's needed to save the Democrats, and a vigorous internal debate (with my favorite side eventually winning) is the best way to gain that focus. Strengthened and invigorated from a successful infight, the Democratic party will be ready to take back the country for the long-term - but not before.

Get em.