Fortune favors the bold.
-- Virgil
Ariana Huffington made an excellent point in her most recent article. Kerry lost, not because of our efforts, and not even because of "culture war" issues--although the "values" debate was used brilliantly, if cynically, by the Right to get their base mobilized. No, Kerry lost because he refused to run a bold campaign, preferring to woo the center, where he presumed the undecideds lie. While pursuing undecided voters may be worth while during an ordinary election, the 2004 Presidential election was anything but ordinary.
More after the bump....
The Republicans ran a campaign based on boldness. Bold lying, bold cheating, and bold mistakes, perhaps, but bold actions all the same. What could we offer in contrast? Largely, we were offering a somewhat watered down version of the Republican platform. Kerry and Edwards repeatedly said gay marriage is wrong but should be decided by each state. They repeatedly said that they would've invaded Iraq under similar circumstances and that they were right to vote to authorize force in Iraq. They said that we should maintain tax cuts which we cannot afford to maintain. The results were almost predictable--despite doing a fantastic job of mobilizing voters, we were basically told at the polls that most of the country, if forced to choose between snake oils, would prefer a stronger version of the same rather than a watered-down version.
The problem, then, is selling snake oil instead of presenting a bold solution to our country's--and our world's--problems.
Lose this day loitering - 'twill be the same story
To-morrow - and the next more dilatory;
Each indecision brings its own delays,
And days are lost lamenting o'er lost days,
Are you in earnest? sieze this very minute -
Boldness has genius, power and magic in it.
Only engage, and then the mind grows heated -
Begin it, and then the work will be completed!
--Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe
Do we Democrats even remember what it was like to have bold politicians? We are the party of FDR, Truman, JFK, and LBJ. Some were more gentlemanly and others were rough and crude, but all of them were bold in their own way. Do we not remember how radical Roosevelt seemed at the time, and how he brazenly instituted powerful and long-lasting programs which combatted the Great Depression and helped provide a social cushion for those who needed it the most? Do we not remember how Truman had no qualms with sending a strong, if wrong-headed, message to the Soviet Union by dropping atom bombs on Japan to end World War II? Do we not remember Kennedy's New Frontiers and the Cuban Missle Crisis? What of Johnson's Great Society?
There is no denying that each of these leaders made mistakes, some of which were terrible--perhaps not quite on the same scale as the Iraq invasion, but still comparible. Roosevelt didn't need to ignore clear warnings that Japan was to attack Pearl Harbor. Truman didn't have to drop atom bombs to end World War II. Kennedy could've stopped the Bay Of Pigs invasion. Johnson should not have escalated Vietnam. Yet it seems obvious that history in general has not condemned these men for their failings. Indeed, it seems that our own party has condemned these leaders far more harshly than the majority of Americans. The lesson to be learned here is not that Republicans are more amoral or unethical, or that Americans don't care about morality or ethics--they do. Nor is the point here to reveal well-known moral failings amongst our own heroes. But the lesson is that there must not be a hint of hesitation when the chips are down.
I wish not to denigrate our sense of morality and ethics, but to point out that history often does not allow American Presidents, regardless of their party, to be less than bold very often. During general periods of peace and prosperity it may be allowable for a President to be more subtle and nuanced. Over the long term, however, it remains obvious that only bold Presidents will be remembered as great Presidents.
And, I hope it is clear by now, we are lacking in recent great Presidents. Patrick Doherty understands this when he says that "this election cycle was the tenth consecutive contest in which we fought the battle of 1964." The visions of the "great society" and the "rendezvous with destiny" have been the only visions to spring forth in the 40 years since Johnson squared off with Goldwater. Imagine, in contrast, if there had been 40 years of struggle between two visions of America in the time before 1964. That time period includes a Great Depression, a World War, an international police action, a Cold War, the rise of the middle class, the mainstreaming of unions, and the birth of the Civil Rights movement, just to mention a few outstanding historical highlights. What if none of these had been approached without a new vision of the future? Surely today's challenges are as momentuous as any before, and yet we are still repeating the same basic notions of how to proceed.
Let us be honest: This long-term battle between liberal and conservative visions has resulted in a political center that is, at best, wishy-washy. It agrees with the sentiments of the Great Society even as it pines for its rendezvous with destiny. It wants Social Security; it wants tax cuts; it wants military might; it wants multinational coalitions; it wants freedom; it wants security; it wants a helping hand; it wants to be left alone. And so the center struggles with its conflicting desires, unable to resolve them profitably and unable to decide between two centrists with slightly different platforms.
There's nothing in the middle of the road but yellow lines and dead armadillos. -- Jim Hightower
The time has come to abandon this center. It does not serve our long term interests to pander to their contradictions. Clinton and the DLC might have succeeded partially in maintaining the center as a position of strength, but only at the cost of leaving very little by way of an enduring legacy. Free trade? That was in the works back in Reagan's day. Welfare reform? It's hard to get excited about a program that forces people back to work without giving the tools to prosper. Kosovo? It was a high point in Clinton's career but certainly overshadowed by Iraq at this point. No, at this point Clinton's legacies are an almost cult-like popularity amongst many, but not all, Democrats; and a sex scandal turned into the second impeachment ever in US history.
We need to do better than that. We can--we will--but only if we can shed our reliance on centrism. The center can only leave us in the status quo, with minor adjustments to the current situation and no momentum to move us past it. But our country is becoming boxed in, with multiple crises approaching quickly, and we have no means to reliably rescue ourselves, except to change quickly and with boldness. We've done it before. We must do it again, soon.
The future does not belong to those who are content with today, apathetic toward common problems and their fellow man alike, timid and fearful in the face of bold projects and new ideas. Rather, it will belong to those who can blend passion, reason and courage in a personal commitment to the great enterprises and ideals of American society.
-- Robert F. Kennedy