Meet the Press: The Vision of the Democrats

On Meet the Press this morning, the group discussed the vision and identity of the Democratic Party. They begin with a clip of Obama interview with the Reno Gazette Journal in which he said:

"I think it is fair to say that the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time for the past ten, fifteen years in the sense that were challenging conventional wisdom. Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not And in a way Bill Clinton did not. He [Reagan] put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for that. He tapped into the feeling which was we want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing."

John Edwards, in response:

Senator Obama, when speaking used Ronald Reagan as an example of change. Now, my view is I would never use Ronald Reagan as an example of change.

Hillary Clinton:

"My leading opponent the other said that he thought the Republicans had better ideas than Democrats over the last 10 - 15 years. That is not the way I remember the last ten 10 - 15 years."

In these quotes, there is a lot about character. First, Obama's comments focus on trying to reshape the party in a way that would lead, rather than have a presidency, like President Clinton did, where he needed to carve out space that the Republicans gave him-- hence Clinton's policy of triangulation, which limits the amount of agency, rhetorical or otherwise, a speaker possess. Second, Obama speaks of building a coalition, similar to the Reagan Democrats, which may decrease the ideological fight between parties.

The comments by former Senator Edward's seems childish-- "oh.. I would never use Reagan as an example..." Not even as a bad example?

Yet, the comment by Senator Clinton is far worse since it, first, is intellectually dishonest for the way in which it twists what Senator Obama said and, second, seems to focus the identity of the Democrats on the development of a devil figure, either Reagan or Bush. The problem with this is that the enemy will go away. And, once the enemy goes away, then there is nothing left to fight and, consequently, no identity.

For example, after the first Gulf War, President H.W. Bush had nothing to run on and he lacked that "vision thing" to build a foundation. All he could do was say that yes there were domestic problems in 1992 and he and James Baker would turn their attention to them.

It was not a good strategy then and will not be now.