E.J. Dionne is becoming one of my favorite commentators. He hits the nail on the head in discussing what was so innovative and effective about the convention last week.
Some choice grafs:
But at this year's convention, the Democrats -- including, interestingly, Clinton himself -- scrapped the defensive approach and went on offense.Thus emerged a major theme of this fall's campaign: that Republicans are a party of dividers who can win only by setting one group of Americans against another.
...
Attacking divisiveness could yield multiple dividends in the fall. Having laid down their argument, Democrats can respond to Republican attacks with a breezy, Reaganesque "there they go again."
...
It's commonly said that this convention was designed to "move the Democrats to the center." Actually, it was a convention designed to move the center toward the Democrats.
Too many political analysts confuse left and right, which are fundamentally about ideology and policy, with rhetoric. Speaking in ways that will appeal to those who don't already share your views isn't moving to the center -- it's simply effective political communication. And there's a double standard at play: Bush regularly makes very conservative policy -- particularly on social issues -- but rarely promotes it through right-wing tirades, and no talking head ever remarks that he's moving to the center or selling out his base.
And though Dionne doesn't say it, this sort of political message actually creates an opportunity for the Democrats to move to the left on policy, by opening a space for bold new proposals offered in terms of national purpose and unity, which we got a taste of in Kerry's call for energy independence:
We value an America that controls its own destiny because it's finally and forever independent of Mideast oil. What does it mean for our economy and our national security when we only have three percent of the world's oil reserves, yet we rely on foreign countries for fifty-three percent of what we consume?
I want an America that relies on its own ingenuity and innovation – not the Saudi royal family.
And our energy plan for a stronger America will invest in new technologies and alternative fuels and the cars of the future -- so that no young American in uniform will ever be held hostage to our dependence on oil from the Middle East.
Hopefully there's more where that came from.
Addendum:
I should point out, in typically spiteful form, that Howard Dean should get much of the credit for this rhetorical shift. To wit:
I am tired of being divided in this country. I am tired of being divided by race. I am tired of being divided by gender, when the president thinks he knows better than an American woman what kind of reproductive health care that she ought to have.I'm tired of being divided by income. I'm tired of being divided by sexual orientation. I'm tired of being divided by religion.
When we say we want our country back, what we mean is that we want the country that all of us were promised when we were 21 years old, the country where we were all in this together, where we could believe, where we could hope again that America would be a better place as we grew older.
Amen.
Addendum II:
Over at The Gadflyer, Paul Waldman is making the same point (about unity, that is, not Dean).
Posted by Michael at August 2, 2004 02:44 AM | TrackBack