[0]
So, have you all seen Adam Nagourney's column [2] in today's NY Times? Nagourney lays out a rather rational, though misguided, case that winning control of Congress in 2006 may be the worst thing the Democrats could do:
Is it really in the best interest of the Democratic Party to win control of the House and Senate in November? Might the party's long-term fortunes actually be helped by falling short?
Nagourney's argument is, if I'm reading correctly, that for the Democrats to get a slim majority in the House and Senate would still leave them out of control of the government and ineffectual thus burdening the Dems with all the responsibility of the failings of the Bush administration with no power to do anything about it.
More so, Nagourney seems to fear that old bugaboo of the Democratic Party, the left, would use this as an opportunity to exact revenge upon the Bush administration and Republicans by launching investigations and demanding justice. Of course, in Nagourney's mind this would not sit well with those mythical moderate voters who seem averse to power being exercised, but only when Democrats are the ones flexing their political muscle. How else to explain the zeal with which voters have returned Republicans to power time and again for the past 25 years? But even Nagourney admits that Americans prefer a bipartisan government, so can we really consider Democratic reticence to be a virtue?
Finally, Nagourney believes that by making modest advances in 2006 the Democrats will actually be hurting their chances at returning to the Whitehouse in 2008. Nagourney believes, and this seems typical of Beltway Democrats, that it's an all or nothing situation and moderate, incremental gains are not possible. Ironically, this is more in line with the thinking of the far left than of moderate Democrats. Bill Clinton, arguably the most successful moderate Democrat of our time, takes a bolder stance:
I don't buy the argument that we'd be better off if we almost got there and didn't win a majority in either house. I think when you suit up you've got to try to win, and I hope we will win because we will get better public policy and it'll be better for America.
On this I fully agree with President Clinton. Democrats can not be afraid to win simply because they will encounter strong opposition and be challenged with cleaning up the mess created by President Bush and the Republican leadership. The time is right to form a solid long term plan designed to steer the country away from the politics of extremism that have been waged by Republicans for the past quarter century toward saner, progressive policies that benefit everyone.
It would be unmitigated naivite to think we could get everything we want all at once, and even more naive to think that's even desirable or possible. The Republicans have set the agenda in this country for 25 years based upon a framework they began crafting 40 odd years ago. The only way this will be undone is if Democrats stop snatching defeat from the jaws of victory and actually make a commitment to retaking Republican offices and working the system, not entirely broken yet, such that decades of right wing extremist malfeasance can slowly be deconstructed and democracy repaired.
It's long overdue to stop listening to the timid naysayers who behave as if afflicted with Avoidant Personality Disorder [3]. Perhaps it's time the Democrats recalled the words of John F. Kennedy in his famous "city on a hill" speech [4] [audio [5]] before the General Court Of The Commonwealth Of Massachusetts days before his inauguration in 1961:
For of those to whom much is given, much is required. And when at some future date the high court of history sits in judgment on each one of us--recording whether in our brief span of service we fulfilled our responsibilities to the state--our success or failure, in whatever office we may hold, will be measured by the answers to four questions:
First, were we truly men of courage--with the courage to stand up to one's enemies--and the courage to stand up, when necessary, to one's associates--the courage to resist public pressure, as well as private greed?
Secondly, were we truly men of judgment--with perceptive judgment of the future as well as the past--of our own mistakes as well as the mistakes of others--with enough wisdom to know that we did not know, and enough candor to admit it?
Third, were we truly men of integrity--men who never ran out on either the principles in which they believed or the people who believed in them--men who believed in us--men whom neither financial gain nor political ambition could ever divert from the fulfillment of our sacred trust?
Finally, were we truly men of dedication--with an honor mortgaged to no single individual or group, and compromised by no private obligation or aim, but devoted solely to serving the public good and the national interest.
In short, it's time we as Democrats set about carping the diem.
[6] | 
[7] | 
[8] | 
[9] | 
[10] | 
[11] | 
[12] | 
[13] | 
[14] | 
[15] | 
[16]