Getting Serious

Digby is frustrated because Democrats don't seem to have the killer instinct. When we have a good political issue, we don't stick with it, and we don't really go for the jugular. Pandagon has recently made a similar point.

I'm not so sure. In fact, I see real reasons for hope. There is some indication that the Democrats in Congress have become much tougher. Dean's election as Chair is one example, and the combative rhetoric of Reid and his colleagues in the Senate is another. There is a renewed emphasis on maintaining cohesion in the Democratic caucus, which appears to be paying dividends in the Great Social Security Debate.

At the same time, there is a new move towards rhetorical flexibility: Democrats should focus on the issues that unite them and that play to their advantage (on class issues like the estate tax). On issues where Democrats disagree, or they are weak, they should give their membership some freedom to roam (like abortion). This requires finesse, but is essential to constructing a political majority, which is necessarily heterogenous. On the abortion issue in particular, despite my real objections to the anti-choice position and my concerns about an ambiguity strategy, I do not think that we should read anti-choice Democrats out of the party. We should just make sure that they don't diminish the party's commitment to abortion rights or support archconservative judges. A big tent, however, is just fine.

So cheer up, Democrats! There is reason for hope. And if this Social Security proposal implodes on the Bushies, we just might have a whole lot more to cheer about in 2006.