The problem is not a lack of structure, or even a lack of ideas. The problem is a lack of coherence to the ideas. The Democratic party's base right now is an assembly of anti-capitalists (who have to mute their opinions, because America embraces capitalism heartily) and a broad spectrum of single issue interests (abortion rights, gun control, antiwar activists, etc.). At different times, different parts of this structure need to be stroked. And at other times, Presidential hopefuls will be able to assemble different factions of this collective into a sufficient mass to win the nomination. However, no common ideologic thread exists.
An alternate view linked up by Althouse, after she commented on a recent editorial by Bill "yawn" Bradley. Another view argued that the Democrats are made up of people who don't take leadership very well, including law professors like Althouse, who herself comments:
Is it a mystery that academics tend to vote for the Democratic candidate, despite this lack of coherent ideas? Academics are - I'm thinking - a lot less interested in elaborately structured ideologies than nonacademics imagine. Perhaps intellectuals are more comfortable with freewheeling, pragmatic politics than the average citizen. But Bradley is still right: the Democrats should develop a coherent ideology in order to speak persuasively to that average citizen, who longs for ideas that make sense. And plenty of academics would freewheelingly and pragmatically enjoy raking in lots of money while they produce the necessary structure of ideas.
Whatever. My basic thought is that aside from Clinton, the Democrats sent up boring losers as presidential nominees, including one that still managed to beat the current occupant (but not enough). And, yes, a simple message is useful. It also should not be TOO difficult to establish. Of course, some might be a bit hard pressed to supply simplistic question begging slogans like the "culture of life," as if everyone's definition of "life" is comparable, and no hard questions exist. OTOH, we have the likes of Kevin Drum, who is willing to accept some national domestic law regime, and does not quite see what is wrong with the idea.
Anyway, as to the opening argument, the same can be said about the Republicans. They too have different strands of thought, different competiting issues, and so forth. Yes, they can unite on some level, but so can the Democrats ... when they have a good leader and so forth. Furthermore, the Democrats are not without certain basic themes, including equality, internationalism, and some basic safety net. And, no, their base is not just "anti-capitalist." For instance, blacks and various other groups are clearly Democrat. And, anti-capitalism is not really the compelling force that drives such interest groups. Analysis tends to be so full of crap sometimes.
Or, at the very least quite debatable. The judge* that declared the Terri Schiavo legislation unconstitutional, for instance, defined "activism" thusly:
Generally, the definition of an "activist judge" is one who decides the outcome of a controversy before him according to personal conviction, even one sincerely held, as opposed to the dictates of the law as constrained by legal precedent and, ultimately, our Constitution.
No, not really. It's like when I recently argued that the Dred Scott Case was "activist." Someone noted that it was defensible given the laws of the era. Not really, but again, this is not the necessary component of "activism." The word is akin to the word "liberal" in that its abused so much that it is deemed an epithet. In fact, the word can basically mean a strong use of constitutional power that might very well be compelled by the instrument. For instance, the Warren Court was "activist" to uphold the right to a lawyer, if necessary, paid for by the state.
Talking about basic ideals that the Democrats follow, an issue being discussed in the blogsphere these days is the move by some pharmacists to refuse to prescribe birth control. This is deemed a matter of conscience, which is akin to saying a pacifist can pick and choose who to shoot while on duty. As one person notes:
Pharmacists who won't do their jobs don't deserve special protection. As healthcare professionals, they are responsible for doing what is medically best for each patient--and since staying non-pregnant is medically safer than being pregnant or getting an abortion, a pharmacist has no right to disregard a pregnancy-preventing prescription.
Ah, but what about the "culture of life?" Hmm ... that might very well include protecting the health of women who decides to take morning after pills instead of putting herself in risk of a health threatening pregnancy. Or, one that will bring in a life to this world that cannot be properly cared for. Because Democrats are concerned about patient health, women's rights, and the care of children. No single issue anti-capitalism dominated bunch they.
---
* A life-long Republican and appointed by the President's dad, he recently penned an opinion upholding an across the board ban on gay adoptions, but still showed a concern for basic constitutional commands. But, as I told someone recently, it is questionable just how "conservative" the current bunch in power truly are.