<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <META content="MSHTML 5.50.4134.600" name=GENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=#ffffff> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I don't disagree with the criticism-- within Dem activists this is the standard strategic criticism of much Democratic leadership.  Because I advocate voting for Dems does not mean I think they have the right strategy for electing themselves.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>As you may remember-- as you sent me a nice book as a prize -- I was quite critical of Al Gore's strategy in pursuing the Presidency on many similar grounds to this article.  If Daschle and the Dems do not get their act together, or union activists and others do not do so on their behalf, next November could be quite painful and we could see Bush with full control of all three branches for a full term, rather than just a couple of months as he had in arly 2001. Of course, those few months allowed the GOP to bankrupt the treasury for the foreseeable future; give them two full years and by 2004, this whole "the Dems are no better than the GOP" silliness will be at an end and electing Democrats will be the single focus of 99% of activists in fall 2004.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>But Daschle does need to get off his ass with a far stronger message to avoid that.  </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Nathan Newman<BR><A href="mailto:nathan@newman.org">nathan@newman.org</A><BR><A href="http://www.nathannewman.org">http://www.nathannewman.org</A></FONT></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV> <DIV style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A title=sia@nyc.rr.com href="mailto:sia@nyc.rr.com">Seth Ackerman</A> </DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=lbo-talk@lists.panix.com href="mailto:lbo-talk@lists.panix.com">lbo-talk@lists.panix.com</A> </DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Saturday, January 12, 2002 3:57 PM</DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Democrats Stumble in the Fog </DIV> <DIV><BR></DIV> <DIV> <TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="85%" align=center> <TBODY> <TR align=left> <TD> <DIV align=left><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2><I>Nathan, what do you think of this analysis? This particular writer cannot be accused of either revolutionary defeatism or an ignorance of the legislative process. Yet he makes the same criticism of the Dems as a lot of people on this list.</I></FONT></DIV> <DIV align=left><EM><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT></EM> </DIV> <DIV align=left><EM><FONT face=Arial size=2>Seth</FONT></EM></DIV> <DIV align=left><EM><FONT face=Arial size=2>---</FONT></EM></DIV> <DIV align=left><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2><I></I></FONT> </DIV> <DIV align=left><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2><I>Published on Friday, January 11, 2002 in the <A target=_new href="http://www.latimes.com/">Los Angeles Times</A> </I></FONT></DIV></TD></TR> <TR align=left> <TD> <DIV align=left><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=5><B>The Clock Ticks as Democrats Stumble in the Fog </B></FONT></DIV></TD></TR> <TR align=left> <TD> <DIV align=left><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2><B>by Matthew Miller</B></FONT></DIV></TD></TR> <TR> <TD height=10> </TD></TR> <TR vAlign=top align=left> <TD><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>Poor Tom Daschle. <P>He can't call for a repeal of the Bush tax cut because so many top senators in his party voted for it. <P>He can't call for any major initiatives without repealing the tax cut (and for fear of being tagged a big spender). The result is that everyone is mad at him. Conservative Democrats like Zell Miller and John Breaux think he's a political moron. Liberal Democrats like Paul Wellstone think he's a substantive traitor. <P>They're right about one thing: His agenda is incoherent. But in that respect, poor Tom is only a faithful reflection of the Democratic Party itself. <P>Now, incoherence isn't necessarily a defect in political life, if it can be marketed effectively to gain the power to shape events on your terms. Ronald Reagan's agenda--boost defense, slash taxes and balance the budget--was masterfully incoherent, and he never paid a political price for the massive deficits it bequeathed. As a result, American politics took a long-term turn to the right. <P>George W. Bush's agenda--the surplus is big enough to do it all, so let's start with big tax cuts for the wealthiest--turned out to be brilliantly incoherent as well. It's on track to push the U.S. political center of gravity even further to the right, by which I mean shrinking government as a force in equalizing opportunity and mitigating some of the burdens of bad luck. <P>Daschle's--and the Democrats'--current problem is that successful incoherence requires bold, inspiring goals (or incompetent opposition, which helps explain Bush's domestic successes). Timid incoherence is simply a sign of confusion. <P>That's the lesson of the great Republican irrationalists: If you're going to be incoherent, shoot for the moon. Put those huge gaps in logic and math in the service of "ending the evil empire," not toward pushing puny goals like a "patients' bill of rights." Who'll storm the barricades for that? <P>Yet Democrats can't think big. Take health care. Every day brings fresh news of rising costs and shrinking coverage. The ranks of the 40 million uninsured seem sure to soar. <P>It's a disgrace. It's a major problem. It should be a political opportunity. <P>So what do Democrats, in their wisdom, focus on? Health coverage for the recently unemployed, as part of the faux debate over a "stimulus" bill. <P>Why is this the limit of Democratic ambition? You can't distinguish this goal from what Bush himself says he wants to do. <P>Democratic strategy today is a game of inches. Inches don't inspire. <P>This game of inches can't change the landscape, and it can't begin to address the larger challenges (in health care, urban schooling and more) that matter--issues that Democrats remain the supposed voice for in our system. For those who care about substance over symbols, the key question of the decade may be this: Can Democrats develop a political strategy that would include solving our biggest problems? <P>The outlook is discouraging. And meanwhile, the clock is ticking. Every day the baby boomers get closer to their rocking chairs. The surge in health and pension costs after 2010 will drain away the cash and political energy to do anything but cope with their retirement. <P>If you're a conservative, that's fine by you. If you think there's an unfinished agenda for the nation that needs to be funded, this is a calamity. <P>Republicans are happy to run out the clock. For Senate Majority Leader Daschle and the Democrats, the fog is so thick you can't even see the myopia. </P></FONT></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>