Michael Tomasky has written an article for The American Prospect’s current issue titled “Party in Search of a Notion.” Everyone who is interested in creating a new Democratic majority party should read Tomasky’s compelling argument: that we must recreate what we as Democrats once had, the notion that we stand for the common good rather than for simply a collection of a bunch of individual or interest groups rights. This rediscovery of our own liberal legacy which was responsible for almost 100% of the good life in America for the last fifty years of the twentieth century is what will not only enliven the Democratic Party but the democratic heart of our country.
Here’s a link: http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=11400
Almost as if on cue, Nancy Pelosi demonstrated the need for just this approach on Meet the Press. Here’s what Tomasky wrote in the Prospect Online.
So Nancy Pelosi was on Meet the Press Sunday, and I thought she was doing pretty well as she was talking up the Democrats’ plan for energy independence. Then Tim Russert hit her with this:
RUSSERT: But this will be huge subsidies to bring it about. Would you be willing to roll back the Bush tax cut to pay for it?
PELOSI: This isn’t — we are willing to put all of our, our initiatives on the table. We think they compete very well. One thing we’ll roll back immediately are the Bush subsidies and royalty holidays, which are around $20 billion.RUSSERT: But would you repeal the Bush tax cut?
PELOSI: Well, what I’m — what we’re talking about here on energy independence is something that will save the American people money.
RUSSERT: But it will take — it all takes money, Congressman [sic]. The Brazilian government has subsidized their industry.
PELOSI: Yeah.
RUSSERT: Would you be willing to roll back the Bush tax cuts?
PELOSI: I’ll tell you something, if we could bring the war in Iraq to a conclusion, we would save a lot of money and could declare energy independence and this is the, this is the OPEC countries’ worst nightmare, that we would be energy independent. The technology is there, the commitment is there, Democrats have a goal. We have a plan. We have a timetable to accomplish it, and we intend to do so. And you know what? Do you know what we spend? Fifty billion dollars a year just protecting the sea lanes for the oil to come from the Middle East. That money can be spent to invest in this.
RUSSERT: But why are you so reluctant to say you’ll roll back the Bush tax cuts? Most Democrats voted against them.
PELOSI: Well, I, myself, am against them. But the point is…
Tomasky points out that it was disappointing that Pelosi could not or would not simply state what so importantly makes us different from the Republicans on this particular issue and on so many more. Pelosi would not make an argument that contrasts a priority of the common good against one of individual benefits.
And then he goes on to state what to me should be the central Democratic Party principle that gets restated over and over.
What the country needs is a Democrat who will say something like the following:
“Look, if what you want is more and more tax cuts, then you better go ahead and vote Republican, because that’s what Republicans will do. But look around you. We have needs as a people. All of us agree, for example, that we need to wean ourselves off foreign oil. We can do that as Americans. But we can’t do it through tax cuts. You and your neighbors can’t get together, pool your tax cuts, and create a fund to encourage businesses to invest more in bio-fuels. I’m afraid, my fellow Americans, that like it or not, only the federal government can do that. So you need to decide: If you just want tax cuts, and you wanna kick the problem of energy independence down the road to your children and grandchildren when it may be too late, then vote Republican. If you want to be serious about trying to do something about this problem, then you better vote for me, because I’ll do something about, and the Republicans won’t.”
That’s a common-good argument. Am I missing something? It just doesn’t sound that difficult to me. It will be controversial at first. The wingnuts will bray in the expected fashion, and the media will ape them and scream about Democrats raising taxes. But then, if my mythical Democrat just keeps saying it and doesn’t apologize, at some point, a corner will be turned. A poll will find a surprising number of people actually agreeing with this Democrat on substance, and giving him/her some props for sticking to his/her guns.
This is the principle that should be the foundation of all specific Democratic policy statements, whether it’s energy independence, health care, Social Security, education, defense spending, you name it. Tomasky has stated very clearly what all of us have been nibbling around the edge of.
