Consequently, to stand any chance of winning next year, Republicans must pray for a national amnesia to erase the previous eight years from the minds of voters. But amnesia only happens in soap operas—and that's why Democrats will win in 2008. As long as Democratic candidates remind voters that the Republican platform and Bush's record are one and the same, victory will be assured.
This is precisely the wrong approach for Democrats to take in 2008. No matter how bad a president you think Bush has been (debate rages in America's coffee shops over whether his presidency is transcendentally atrocious or merely disastrous), attacking him is no substitute for an actual platform. Thinking otherwise is exactly how Democrats managed the improbable feat of losing in 2004.
Back then, some friends of mine wrote the following in a New York Times op-ed about the relationship between what a party puts in its platforms, and how they do at the polls that year:
Another platform indicator is the candidate-to-opponent ratio. In 1984, the Democrats, in their hulking platform, found it almost impossible to spell out their policies without reference to the Republicans. Ronald Reagan, for example, was mentioned 213 times, while Walter Mondale, the nominee, didn't come up once -- and he lost in a rout. Republicans tried the same tactic in 1996, singling out Bill Clinton 153 times -- and giving Bob Dole a paltry 45 mentions. If the strategy was to rally the base, it fell flat with the voters -- an important lesson for members of the ''anybody but Bush'' crowd, who trust hatred of the president, and not support for John Kerry, to ensure a Democratic victory this year.
The simple fact is that Americans are looking for more than just a change. They are looking for answers. In 2006, a Democratic Congress was elected, pretty much on the basis of not being Republican. One year later, Congress is one of the few political entities in America even less popular than the president. A recent Reuters/Zogby poll found that Congress enjoys the approval of just 11 percent of Americans. That's worse than O.J. Simpson (16 percent), to say nothing of our own cosmically awful (or was it astonishingly dreadful) president, who weighed in at 29 percent.
It is certainly possible that our almost pathological obssession with attacking Bush at the expense of all other political discourse will lead Democrats to one or two more successful elections. But every day the Party slouches forward with no direction in mind besides doing whatever is the opposite of Bush, it hurts our chances of winning in the long run. Changing the direction of America takes more than saying that the present direction is terrible, even if that's true (and it is). It takes a proactive vision whose starting point is not "What are the other guys doing" but rather "What does America need right now?"
A genuine progressive agenda won't get off the ground in this country until activists like Kos figure out that Bush just doesn't merit his current position as organizing principle for the American left. If you really want to make Americans mad enough to put you in charge, don't just show them that everything we have now is terrible. Show them what you would do with the country if you were given the chance. Then, you can remind them that the goons now in power are standing in the way. Not only is that more compelling to voters, it also compels you to think about how to lead. Because leadership--not just a chance at replacing the other guy--is supposed to be what you're campaigning for in the first place.
