What’s Their Plan?

Shakes here…

As the midterms draw ever nearer, Bush’s poll numbers are sinking like a snitch with cement blocked feet, providing the Dems with an opportunity to make some headway come election time. The electorate, however, still doesn’t seem entirely convinced that the Dems are the solution to their problems, and we routinely hear that the Dems lack a cohesive message. So what’s their plan?

Via Political Wire, we find that "Senate Democrats have come up with five issue areas that candidates will focus on in the 2006 races." The issues: National security, energy independence, economic strength, retirement security and health care.

I like health care as an issue. The reason I like it is because it’s firmly a progressive issue. Even though Bush passed his idiotic, corporate-welfare Medicaid reform bill, I sincerely doubt there’s anyone with two brain cells still knocking around between their ears who believes it was illustrative of a GOP determination to solve the health care crisis in America.

The other four are issues for which it’s necessary that the Democrats have a solid plan and a cohesive, easily-communicated message, but I don’t find them especially inspiring. And that’s because they’re Republican issues. You may be thinking, for example, Shakes, energy independence is not a Republican issue, but when the nebulous terms are reduced into what they really mean—the Iraq War, oil prices, taxes, and social security—it’s readily apparent that this is a reactionary platform. They’re still letting the GOP control the discussion.

The Dems most certinaly need to provide an alternative agenda on national security, energy independence, economic strength, and retirement security, but instead of making those the focus, their positions on those issues should be woven into a comprehensive platform, the centerpiece of which is instead five plainly stated progressive issues: universal health care, aggressively addressing endemic poverty, engaging global environmental alliances, voting reform, and reforming school funding (as in, schools no longer primarily funded by property taxes, which creates the disparities we see between rich and poor communities).

Or whatever. Those were just the first five off the top of my head. You could substitute broadening workers’ rights and/or family leave, a 21st century civil rights act, securing a Constitutionally protected right to choice, a compulsory national service plan (in which kids out of high school serve for 2 years in the military, the Peace Corps, a domestic emergency response core, etc.)…I mean, it could be anything. Just something new and exciting—something that will make people pay attention and change the discussion. Something that forces the Republicans to come up with an alternative plan for a bloody change. The Left needs to be vital, and there is vitality in new ideas.

Yesterday, Sen. Mark Dayton, D-Minn., introduced legislation proposing a U.S. Department of Peace and Nonviolence, which would seek to “develop an array of policies from international conflict-resolution to reducing domestic abuse and violence against animals” and promote justice, expand human rights, and prevent conflict. The project has a proposed budget of $8 billion annually, which is two percent of the Pentagon’s defense budget. It will likely die a quick death, although half of Minnesota's congressional delegation (which is all but one Democrat) and 11 other states’ Democratic Parties have endorsed the plan.

The GOP is of course dismissing it as “a naïve and unreasonable approach to dealing with the problems of the 21st century, including international terrorism” and an idea spawned of “liberal extremists.” The first charge requires a bit of nuance, explaining how diplomacy indeed does have a role in combating terrorism, especially with the leadership of countries in which terrorism has fertile soil, but the second one is easily countered: Since when are the ideas of peace, human rights, and justice extreme?

The idea of peace is only extreme to warmongers.

When Dems put forth a genuinely progressive new idea, it quickly reveals the GOP for what they are—the real graveyard of good ideas. They’ve had all the power and opportunity to put into play their entire agenda, and look where it’s gotten us. To be seen as a vibrant and desirable alternative, Dems need to advocate new ideas and a new direction, not just variations on the same theme. Clearly, Iraq (for example) will be a big issue, and a concise response conveying a good alternative strategy is important. Beyond that, though, give us something bold about which to be enthusiastic. America’s ready for a new conversation.