July 10, 2003
A Wholistic Approach to the White House
I’m working on a theory here. I was struck a few weeks ago by the repeated media call that the members of the Democratic field needed to find a “united message” as to why George Bush should be fired. I don’t think that campaign messages will be enough. And I don’t think one person will be enough. What we need is a fully defined, dedicated team to replace Bush in the White House. (Of course I thought I was the only one thinking this way until I started checking out a variety of message boards to discover I am definitely not alone.)
As a manager, I've had to fire people - sometimes for cause, sometimes for financial reasons. It's never easy to make the case for firing - regardless of how deserving it might be. Generally, human nature tends to let things go for as long as possible; to not muddy the waters or confront someone about their faults or admit there's not enough money to pay them anymore. And at the rate we're paying for Iraq (registration required), I don't think that's out of the realm of possibility here. But if the Republicans insist on running government like a business, we should hold them all accountable, starting with the CEO.
As Adam Nagourney of the NYT said June 29, if you pulled together different components of each Dem candidate, you'd have a real contender in November 2004. (It's archived so I can't link unfortunately - here's a brief excerpt:)
Yes, most Americans in a recent New York Times/CBS News poll could not name a single Democrat seeking the presidential nomination, evidence that this crew is not making a deep impression on the national psyche. And, yes, conversations with Democrats in Iowa and New Hampshire, where people know something about these things, are more likely to turn up an unhappy accounting of candidates' shortfalls than a celebration of their strengths.
Yet if all of the nine candidates have their weaknesses, most bring a few strengths. As that realization takes hold, it is not uncommon to hear Democrats fantasize about creating the Frankenstein candidate (though some Democrats prefer the term Composite Candidate) -- picking among the strengths, while leaving the weaknesses behind.
Here's what I think the Gang of Nine (at least that's the total as of today) should do:
- Find a big room somewhere - sort of like the Requirements Room in the latest Harry Potter book. (For the uninitiated, it's a secret room where everything you require for your gathering magically appears.)
- Agree that there is one common goal - to defeat George W. Bush in November 2004 and pledge to stop any intra-party infighting right now.
- Assess the skill sets of every candidate in the field - what do they do best - and match candidates to the available positions i.e., Prez, VP, cabinet posts, etc.
- Before leaving the room, all sign a compact - that the ONLY battle to be fought for the next 18 months is the war against GWB's re-election.
I am in no way advocating that we quash the primary process so don't get your shorts all bunched up yet. The presidential candidate field should narrow themselves down to the two or three candidates with the likeliest chance of winning. Then in the primary/caucus season, let the party faithful help make the decision for Prez and VP posts.
Maybe you're thinking 'boy this is too simple.' But that's the beauty of it. This blog and others have stated that to win Democrats need to start changing the rules. This is one way to do that. By matching candidates with vacant positions, we present a team to the American public that's ready to hit the ground running and get to work.
Because the infighting among Democrats has to stop now. We're already resigned to the money gap (although the entire field of Dems has raised close to the same amount that the GOP has raised) and we're at a tremendous disadvantage given the timing of the national conventions. July 26 was way too early, given that the GOP doesn't meet until the end of August. That's just nine weeks until Election Day.
Despite my idealistic tendencies, there's enough of a cynic here to know that it will all come down to egos - and we know how big they must be to run for any public office - and the ability for all the men and women involved (candidates, staff, supporters and consultants) to put personal agendas and differences aside and repeat after me: We Must Beat GWB, We Must Beat GWB.
Posted by 9thwave at July 10, 2003 05:07 PMThis sounds like a win-win-win situation. The author recommends interparty coalition building.
http://www.watchblog.com/democrats/archives/000125.html#more
Taking it a step further—————— The Green Party possibly could be brought in thru the Kucinich-Dean camps and all but the most right-wing Libertarians have some issues on the table that are consistent with reopening economic development opportunities and economic stimulation by (ironically) old-fashioned anti-trust enforcement.
Logically, voters would want a young V.P. who could be groomed with the experience to step up eventually, reestablishing a commitment to continuity and party-building.
And if one candidate stood apart from a team effort, GOP spoilers would toss a pot of money at him, in hopes of neutralizing the great potential of a coalition effort.
Posted by: Troy Abbit at July 10, 2003 05:36 PMWhen talking about the Democrats’ “message,” I think it’s worth taking a look at where the Republicans’ message comes from. I think it doesn’t come from the party, it comes from their network of think tanks and advocacy organizations, centered around the Heritage Foundation, and funded primarily, or at least significantly, by a few core right-wing individuals and foundations, like Scaife, Coors, Bradley, Olin and a few others.
From what I have seen, THIS “infrastructure” develops the message, following a long-term plan, and pounds the public with this message (the Wurlitzer”) and then, later, after the public is softened up, the Republican Party harvests the results. “Public schools are failing,” “Social Security is going broke,” “taxes cost jobs,” and similar conventional wisdoms are messages that are driven into the public mind over time, and later Republicans politicians show up offering “solutions” to these “problems.”
Take a loot at Don’t Blame the Democrats and Some History of the Conservative Movement. (You might have to scroll to those titles, depending on BlogSpot’s mood…)
What to do? We need to develop An Amplifier Of Our Own
Posted by: Dave Johnson at July 10, 2003 06:37 PMPicking the candidate in a “smoke-filled room” may be appealing tactically, but it’s undemocratic. Dialogue is good. Competing visions can best be integrated by public debate, and there’s plenty of variation between Kucinich and Lieberman (heck, there’s plenty of variation just within Dean’s supporters, who seem to span the spectrum from those whose key issues are guns and budget-balancing to those for whom what matters is saying no to the Iraq war and setting a tone of standing firm against the Bushies instead of triangulating). All these views deserve a place in the national dialogue.
But we Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents do need to remember that none of the other candidates for the nomination are our enemy.
Many of us Dean fanatics are mad as h*** at the Democratic Party for losing so dramatically over the last couple decades. Some anti-Dean sources are whispering that if Dean is nominated, the DLC types will have such a fit of pique that they will deliberately finish the job of destroying the party. This must not stand. They need to own up to the fact that their failure has brought us to the brink of a one-party system at the federal level, and be open to the possibility of some changes in style at least. We need to make the case without making enemies.
Posted by: Dan Wylie-Sears at July 10, 2003 07:42 PMThis is exactly why the Republicans and their marketing department (Fox, CNN, MSNBC, WaPo, etc etc) are doing everything in their power to ensure Democratic infighting (or at least convince the public of it). It is in their best interest that the Dems drain their energy and cash in primary fight and are weakened in the general election. Why do you think Rove was caught trying to organize Edwards supporters to disrupt festivities on the fourth of July?
Posted by: rev_matt at July 10, 2003 07:43 PM9th — You know I love yout gang of 9 theory.
About firing the CEO… Howard Dean sent out an offical e-mail today calling for the resignation of everyone in the Bush regime connected to the lies about Iraq!
I LOVE THIS GUY!!!!!!
How can anyone be surprised that a regime that brings Piondexter and Abrams back to gov’t could do anything but lie?
Posted by: Robbie D at July 11, 2003 10:43 AMWholistic politics? What a great concept! I’m glad to see that there are still some idealists out there!
Unfortunately, there are few idealists in politics. Everyone has their own agenda and for the most part, it’s the agenda of the few and by the few. There is precious little big picture thinking.
Politicians give little thought given to the nation as a whole or to the long term consequences of their decisions.
When we begin to elect people with the vision, stamina and selfless ideals to serve everyone, that’s when wholistic politics will be meaningful.
Posted by: Rick at July 11, 2003 12:11 PMThis plan will never work because most of the Nine Dwarves see this election as a warm-up for 2008, when the Dems will have a real chance to win.
But I’ve never been clear about whether it’s “wholistic” or “holistic”.
Posted by: Richard Bennett at July 12, 2003 06:10 PMIf anyone thinks that Democrats have thrown in the towel this early, they are underestimating the depth of the anger out there. I’m not sure yet that enough voters are sufficiently outraged right now to fire Bush, but there is a definite shift in public opinion - measured by paying attention to message boards, letters to the editor, bar talk, train rides, cocktail parties, the office lunch room, etc. Not scientific, of course, but enough to renew my hope that this country won’t be subjected to another four years of a concerted effort to roll back the 20th century and the cynical, insidious, destructive path we’ve been on since November 2000.
BTW, according to Merriam-Webster, either spelling is acceptable. (Have ya really been unclear about it or just trying to point out a typo in an annoying passive-agressive sort of way? I’m assuming the former ;o)
Posted by: 9thwave at July 13, 2003 05:53 PM
