Recent posts about internal disputes regarding Martin Frost, etc. lead me to suggest that we will not win with exclusionist views, regardless who is doing the excluding of whom for whatever reason. This is not the same thing as having no principles. Nor does it mean that we should not have vigorous debate. Only that we should not be in the business of running anyone out of the party who is interested in helping defeat Republicans. Let me explain a bit what I mean.I think it goes without saying that all of us contributed to the past campaign in large measure because of a certain amount of anger. That anger is a good thing, because it is justified and helps fuel our commitment. The question is whether it is more important to be angry for its own sake or to commit ourselves to change. Anger and self-righteousness are certainly easier. Change in a democracy is a long process that requires us frequently to make common cause with others who wish to help, even though we may not be in complete agreement. Now, let's be clear. If the Democratic Party as we know it today did not exist, we would be forced to create it. Fortunately, there is no need to reinvent the wheel. There are flaws in our party, as there are in every human organization. That is not a reason to jump ship. After all, if there were a third party, who would join it? Only truly pure liberals? What does that mean? I'm aware of several "liberal" parties that already exist and are available to join, but none of them has ever won a national election, nor come close. Why don't they unify? Mostly because each of them is too interested in their particular brand of philosophical purity to dilute it with others.I'd ask you to listen to Howard Dean, who said the following just last month (the full text is available at http://www.democracyforamerica.com/)."Democrats have the right beliefs to win; we just execute a poor public relations plan. And, despite the enormous improvement in our ground game, the Republicans executed a more effective strategy. Republicans are far more successful because they work in a more unified, disciplined way with local supporters, especially with their base."What Gov. Dean is suggesting is that progressives need not sacrifice their ideals to work within the party. What we need to understand is that while we may each have ideas we believe in that will not soon become public policy, we can still work together to make sure that our common vision is implemented. At this point in time, it is not hard to see that nearly any Democrat is preferable to nearly any Republican for almost any office. Now is the time to be focused, as Bill Clinton used to say, like a laser beam, on improving our party's infrastructure, starting with a DNC chair who appreciates the importance of the mechanics and is willing to roll up his sleeves and get it done, as opposed to someone who wants to be the party's spiritual guide. Individual Democrats know, each in his or her own heart, why we are in this together. We don't need to enforce philosophical purity. We need to win.Regressive Republican policy positions may be national disasters, but we can learn much from their political strategies. They learned while they were in the seemingly permanent minority that they could have success by adopting an incrementalist campaign strategy, focusing only on the most unpopular aspects of Democratic positions (hence "partial-birth" abortions; the "death tax"; "frivolous law suits"; "special rights" for homosexuals). I'm not suggesting that we need to mislead America the way they do. I'm suggesting we need to realize that it is far better strategy to discuss some modest improvements than to insist on the whole enchilada and wind up with them in power, taking us back to an 1870 world view, but with nuclear weapons. Denial is a luxury we just can't afford.I'll discuss any subject with any of you. But I won't ever insist that you aren't a Democrat if you don't agree with me. I look forward to working with ALL of you for the betterment of our state, our nation and our planet.

posted by Joshua P. Angell  @ 20.1.05

<< Home