At the entrance to my street are two campaign signs – one for a Republican candidate, one for a Democratic candidate – side by side. The two signs are almost indistinguishable. Neither has the party affiliation on them. For the Republican candidate, I can understand why. For the Democratic candidate, I’m just disappointed.
Maybe I’m just tired. But I find myself increasingly irritated with the R-lite proscriptions of the Democratic candidates. It is as if there is an acknowledgment that the Republican way of doing business is the better way and that the Democratic way is to be a kindler, gentler version of it.
I’m calling BS.
Under the leadership of Democratic governors, Virginia has been named the best managed state in the country. Under the leadership of Democratic governors, Virginia has been named the best state to raise a child. I am willing to acknowledge that these things occurred during Republican control of the legislature, but it was the gubernatorial leadership that was the catalyst. Democrats have demonstrated that we know how to govern.
I understand fully that we have candidates running in Republican-leaning districts, made so by the gerrymandering of the Republican-controlled legislature during the last redistricting. But this post isn’t about Republicans. It’s about Democrats. And the message that I keep hearing is less of the idea that we know how to “move the pile forward,” as a friend of mine often says, than it is “we’re going to work with the other guys.”
Working with the other guys is all fine and good, but is that what we want to see on a bumper sticker? “Vote for me! I’ll work with the other guys!” Yeah, right. In all honesty, as a voter, I fully expect that both sides will work together for the betterment of the Commonwealth. That should just be a given, even though I know it isn’t. No, what I want to see is the Democrats stand up and be Democrats and talk about the issues that are important – health care, public safety, transportation, education, among them – and how Democrats have plans to address these, how Democrats know how to lead, and how Democrats know how to govern.
We have the blueprint in front of us for what the Virginia legislature could look like next year should the Democrats manage to take both houses: the U.S. Congress. Have we seen bold steps from this new Congress? Not really. Why is that? Because these guys, particularly in the House of Representatives, are looking over their shoulders at a potential challenge in 2008. And that’s where the Democratic pickups in the House of Delegates will be in 2009. Think this year’s campaigns are expensive? Just wait until 2009 when we have all the pickup seats to defend against the onslaught of Republican challengers.
The time to be bold, the time to stand out – and stand up – is now. Take advantage of voter discontent with the Republican Party, take advantage of voter sentiment to throw the bums out, take advantage of Bush’s abysmally low approval ratings. Because come 2009, when you present the voters the choice between a true R and R-lite, we know which way the vote will go. Just ask Phil Kellam.
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
After writing this, I was sent this link which seems to get to the same point from a slightly different perspective.
There are lots of things to “thank a Dem” for – I agree with you…we should advertise our progressive nature, not hide it in the attic like a crazy uncle.
Amen.
I second that..Amen!!!
Amen!!! This blog should be required reading and discussion at local Democratic Committees, the DPVA, and campaigns accross Virginia.
Just ask the simple question: What do Mark Warner, Tim Kaine and Jim Webb have in common? They are known by Virginia Voters to be Democrats.
We should be pushing our Democratic brand … we have reason to be loud and proud … we fight for working people
Who are you and what have you done with my temperant friend Vivian?! Nice post.
What amazes me is that Repuiblicans are proud when they are called conservative, but Dems run from the title Liberal.
The heart knows when wrong is wrong 🙂
bottom line get controll than fight, win win win !!!!!
What is ironic is that we are holding up Mark Warner, Tim Kaine, and Jim Webb as Democrats we should be proud of, yet they all got elected running as moderate, or “middle-of-the-road” Dems, almost from the DLC mold.
And some of the same voices in the articles mentioned express indignation with Dems who label themselves as centrists or moderates, yet they are referring to themselves as “progressives.” Think back a few years — rarely did anyone refer to themself as a “progressive.” They were known as liberals. But after the ass-kickings Walter Mondale and Mike Dukakis received, we saw Clinton/Carville/Begala move to the middle and get elected. It was about then that I noticed Carville and Begala referring to liberal Dems as “progressives.”
And why? Because we allowed the Repugnants to turn liberal into a scary, dirty word. And why did it work? Because policies associated with “liberal” were going down in flames and defeating liberal candidates. Moving to the middle and talking about “progressive” ideas began to get Dems elected . . . i.e., Clinton, Robb, Warner, Kaine, Webb, et al . . .
So what the hell am I babbling about? I understand the frustration of Vivian and Dems about staking out political ground on principle. It’s the sign of a passionate soul, and what good is politics without passion? But the reality of politics — getting ELECTED — pushes the pendulum towards the middle, on BOTH sides. Nixon got elected when he moved to the middle. Gingrich began to wound the R’s once he let things move too far to the right.
Dems that criticize other Dems who call themselves “centrists” or “moderates” are at the same time referring to themselves as “progressives’ instead of “liberals.” And why? For the same reason the “centrists” are — it helps move the agenda and attract needed votes.
I’m afraid it’s one of the uncomfortable parts of politics — you have to decide how pure you wish to be against how much you want to win elections. As is often said in campaigns: “You might not like my position, but we can revisit that once I am elected. I can’t govern or help you if I don’t get elected, so let’s get elected FIRST.”
Then again, what the hell do I know?
Pat – first of all, much of what you refer to comes from the linked article, not my post. I haven’t criticized Dems for calling themselves centrists; rather, I criticize them for not calling themselves DEMOCRATS!
Secondly, I know the process is supposed to push to the middle on both sides but the reality is that things have been pushed so far to the right, that the middle isn’t the middle anymore. And in my mind, that’s why what I sometimes hear sounds more like R-lite than D. It seems that the middle is somewhere to the right of center.
I guess my problem is that now the term Democrat is a bad word, not just liberal.
You’re right Vivian, that was what I meant when I said: ” . . .the voices in the articles mentioned.” I should have said the “linked” article.
And you make a good point about the center line being pushed to the right. Is that because that is what both parties have done to push it there, or are they following the voting public? A year ago, I might have said they are following public opinion and voters, but I am seeing more and more public opinion bucking accepted thought and going in different directions from the voices in Washington.
Maybe that is true in Richmond as well. Look at how the R’s (and many Dems) bent themselves backwards to avoid a gas tax and raising taxes to come up with the idiotic transportation plan. Having done that, now they hear voters all over the state from both sides saying: “Fix the problem, even if that means a gas tax.” Had they listened to voters, we probably wouldn’t have this lizard-looking transportation plan.
You’re exactly right — there is mucho R-Lite as opposed to solid D talk. But is that what voters want to hear? If not, does that mean Dennis Kucinich (who has a lot of ideas and positions that really do appeal to many Dems) has a good chance of being elected?
I do appreciate your concerns and think it is a good thing to raise these questions for discussion. Just think what might happen if they would do this in DC . . . . fat chance.
Wow, Vivian. Wow, Pat. Good discussion (well, maybe not the part about Kucinich).
Maybe next you can explain how Republicans came to believe they own God and the flag.
The problem with Kucinich is that he is perceived as being unelectable. You are right – his positions do appeal to a lot of Dems, but even Ds won’t support him because they think he is unelectable. There’s that old internalized oppression thing again, rearing its ugly head.
The voters didn’t push the center to the right, the parties did that on their own. How many times have you heard people say that no one represents their interests? The options we are presented with as voters is so limited, made even more so by the insane amounts of money needed to run.
The parties are getting well-deserved pushback from the voters. It’s about time, I might add.
Vivian,
The problem with Kucinich is that he IS unelectable. Perception scmerception. Howard Dean would have a better chance.
Call BS all you want, but to win statewide, Dems still have to run as R-lite. Look back to the campaigns of Warner (I won’t raise taxes), Kaine (I’ll enforce the death penalty despite my personal objections), and Webb (I’ll bust a cap in your ass (unless, of course, one of my aides is unknowingly toting my .45 around the capitol)).
This fact is changing, but electing a Kucinichesque Dem to statewide office still seems a few cycles away.
On a related note, I’d be interested to hear whom you and the others around here would like to see run for John Warner’s seat should he retire.
This has been one of the better discussion of late anywhere on the trappings of the process and the perception a campaign must accomodate to get a seat at the table in an election. As being more independent than most that contribute I can tell you that Vivians point regarding Congress and the “blueprint” is interesting because for me with all the media attention regarding this long drawnout process to get to 2008 is hurting statewide campaigns. What I mean is much of what we are learning about these local races is coming from blogs not mainstream media or local news whereas the national debate is dominating all media outlets which cannot help any Dem trying to hold this Congress up as the model. Perception of the current Congress is aweful and unless it begins to deliver some of the promises it made in 2006 then that will certainly not help grassroots Dems out to upset Reps who will politically pin the majority for the lack of progress.
What I would like to see is candidates willing to speak up and nail both sides for its part instead of playing two step with voters. 2006 may prove that change for change sake may not be the best model for productivity and candidates will have to offer more substance this time around. It was once pointed out to me that the Dems appear to make better “leaders” in the Executive Mansion while the Reps are better “legislators” in the GA, I am not sure if that is indeed true but it certainly begs the question.