Friday, May 13, 2005

Owning Morality

I had an interesting conversation about the topic of morality the other night. One of the people I was talking with said that the Democrats were the real Moral Party. I agreed with him. But I said that while the Democrats are the real Moral Party, they have a hard time publicly proclaiming any ownership of morality. It's almost as if Democrats have been trained that such claims are antithetical to our beliefs and therefore are bad. No one "owns" morality, Democrats think, so for us to make any such claim would be wrong. But this is a misconception. The problem is not claiming ownership. The problem is claiming exclusive ownership.

It is the ceding of the battlefield that has allowed Republicans to paint themselves as being the only Moral Party. Yet their claim to being the Moral Party is based entirely on their ability to talk about Morality. It's not that they ever actually do anything about Morality. But they sure talk a good game.

(Frameshop has more on this)

Reckless Driving

There is a special conflict felt by any politician who loves their country at a time when they belong to a party that is not in control of that country. The conflict is this: how do you attack the leadership of the opposition party sufficiently enough to weaken them for electoral defeat without also weakening the country you love in the process.

The problem is that, as much as you might believe your party would be better suited to drive, until the next election rolls around, the other party is the one that has their hands on the wheel. Do you attack them for their driving so much that they can't keep their eyes on the road just as that 18 wheeler is coming down the opposing lane?

Partisanship, the kind that everyone hates, is when politicians attack regardless of the impact those attacks may have on their country. It is the back seat driver who keeps banging the cabby over the head with their purse. That kind of blind assault, while it may feel good to those who have no real power, doesn't do anyone any good.

But isn't there an equal danger to sitting quietly back as you see your driver heading the wrong way down a one way street? Partisanship is not always bad, especially when your driver is drunk.

The solution to the quandry of the patriotic opposition is this: fight back is good when not fighting back creates an even more dangerous situation.

Democrats have tried for years to work with Republicans as they have steered the nation into the future. As much as they might have disagreed with their political philosophy, they were patriots and didn't want their differences of opinion do any further damage to their country.

But the Republicans are driving the wrong way down a one way street. They have driven through several traffic lights. They have raced a train through a crossing signal. They have played slolom with a bunch of school kids. And they are racing down the highway at 90mph with the top thrown back and a cold one propped between their legs.

Taking the wheel away from these yahoos is the only patriotic option left.

Thursday, May 12, 2005

Master of the Senate

Sensei Reid:

"Do you want to confirm judges or do you want to pick a fight?" Reid challenged Republicans.

My admiration for Reid's tactical skills continues to grow. Note how Reid issues this challenge. He knows very well that "picking a fight" is precisely what the Republicans want to do. But he doesn't outright accuse them of that. Instead he veils the accusation in a rhetorical question. By doing so he plants the seed in the mind of the audience that "picking a fight" is precisely what the Republicans are doing but he doesn't give the Republicans a "your just being negative" response that they could use against a direct accusation.

I'm beginning to think that Reid may yet rival LBJ when it comes to being a "Master of the Senate". Of course, it remains to be seen if Reid is as good tactically when he leads the majority. But I'm ready to give him the opportunity.

No more enabling

Matthew Yglesias and Brad DeLong both endorse my "Judgment Is The Issue" approach (though they fail to acknowledge my authorship, but that's okay by me.) Both Mathew and Brad point out that Social Security is the least of our problems right now. By meeting the President halfway on his proposals we would be tacitly endorsing his decision to place it at the top of the agenda where it simply doesn't belong.

Traditionally, the political classes defer to the President when it comes to setting the national agenda. But when that President repeatedly demonstrates poor judgment in setting that agenda, it is the responsibility of others to step forward and steer it back on course. To do otherwise is to simply enable his bungling. It must stop.