New Democrat Update

A NEW COMMANDMENT FOR DEMOCRATS

Ideological litmus tests have increasingly become more prevalent in the GOP - thus the creation of the term RINOs - Republicans In Name Only. Unfortunately, some Democrats are engaging in a similar debate within our party - most recently in the 7 th District Congressional primary race between former State Rep. Peggy Lamm and former State Sen. Ed Perlmutter.

Both candidates rank as some of the very finest people our party has to offer. Both are smart, talented, engaging and well-intentioned leaders who, if elected to Congress, will be sure to strengthen America and Colorado.

Which is exactly why they, as well as Democrats in all other primaries, should avoid battles over who is the “True-Blue Democrat.” Rank-and-file Democrats, let alone the entire electorate in November, will see such banter as not only confusing, but irrelevant to their lives.

Frankly, voters are not in the mood. They are increasingly disenchanted with the political leadership they have been getting, growing increasingly tired of the partisan wars and frustrated with debates framed in traditional terms of liberal versus conservative.

The right kind of competition should be over who has the best ideas to solve the growing economic, security and social problems facing real people. Taking that path will also aid other parts of the campaign, including fund-raising and recruiting volunteers.

Rather than rehashing the past or debating “who a real Democrat is,” our primaries - and our general election campaigns as well - should be about each candidate’s vision and governing philosophy. The real battle should be between those clinging to the familiar past and others willing to embrace an uncertain future with new ideas.

Voters want to know what you will do for them, what you will ask of them, and whether you have what it takes to make your vision come true for them. They are seeking leadership that articulates a clear, optimistic, forward-looking vision, speaks with a clear sense of common purpose, and advocates innovative, practical solutions, rooted in mainstream values. They want a new kind of public activism that equips citizens, families, and communities with the tools they need to solve their own problems.

More specifically, they want a debate that will focus on how to create good jobs, provide better, more affordable health care and strengthen communities. The campaigns should be about reversing the frustration of people working harder and making less, increasing the incomes of those in the middle class and ensuring that no full-time worker has to live in poverty. It should be about opening the doors to more people by improving public and higher education.

It should be about how we can be sure that everyone will have enough savings to retire. It should be about how to reduce exploding federal budget deficits that are saddling our children with unmanageable levels of debt.

In this age of terrorism, the debate should also be about who has what it takes to stand up for American values and interests in an increasingly dangerous world. It should be about making sure the government is doing enough to protect them from another terrorist attack.

It should be about how to take our progressive values and implement solutions that get at the roots of people’s cultural anxieties. It should be about finding ways to promote a stronger sense of responsibility in our culture, a sense of purpose beyond self-interest, a more responsible media, better environmental stewardship, stronger corporate accountability, increased tolerance, and greater inclusion and accountability at all levels of society.

In addition to being good for the state and the country, that kind of debate will much better define our party and its governing philosophy, than arguing over who is more “True Blue.” As the DLC’s Al From and Bruce Reed have written, voters really want answers to these questions. “Are we the party of reform or reaction? Do we believe in economic growth or redistribution? Will we expand the middle class, or take the middle class for granted? Do we have the courage to usher in our own responsibility era, or will we become the something-for-nothing party once again?”

Finally, there is one other danger to arguing over who is the “True-Blue Democrat.” For those voters who actually hear those charges, they are likely to conclude that the attackers are out of the mainstream and out-of-touch with the concerns of ordinary people.

That is a political non-starter especially in statewide races (again in primary and general elections) and in competitive swing districts. As national surveys show, the Democratic Party is an ideologically diverse coalition with moderates and conservatives outnumbering liberals two-to-one. What’s more, winning in November will be even more difficult because liberals (those who presumably will like true-bluers) are only one-sixth of the general electorate.

If Democrats, on the other hand, have primary races that compete on vision, a coherent governing philosophy and ideas, our candidates will be better positioned to set the terms of the debate in the fall. Those who first define a race’s meta-theme determine what that particular election is ultimately all about.

And those who do that always prevail.

A BOOK EVERY DEMOCRAT SHOULD READ

New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman has written a new book - The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century - that should be a wake-up call to America. A flat world, in Friedman terminology, means a much more level economic playing field.

Lower trade barriers, the fall of the Berlin Wall, the Internet, a new global fiber-optic network and common software systems have converged to create a world where it is easy for motivated and skilled individuals to work together. Now, people in India, China and many other places do not have to leave their countries to do business, or almost anything else, with anyone else around the world.

“When the world was round, say 30 years ago, you would much rather have been born a B+ student in Indianapolis, Indiana, rather than a genius in Bangalore, India” says Friedman. “Because the Indian genius, unless he or she could get a visa out of India, really could not plug and play with his or her talent. Today, you do not want to be a B+ student in Indianapolis. You would much rather be a genius in India, because that genius can now innovate at a global level without ever having to emigrate. That is what the flat world makes possible.”

Economically, that means many more people have the opportunity to directly compete with Americans for the highest-end research and design work, as well as low-wage manufacturing and information jobs. Interestingly enough, very few political leaders have a clue that this quiet but incredibly transforming revolution is going on.

A flat world is not just about outsourcing. It is about the ability of companies and individuals to get or “source” whatever knowledge, production, innovation, research, or advice they need. With geographic location much less of a barrier to the free flow of information and ideas, the fruits of one’s labor can come from the company next door, from the state next door, or from the country that is 1,000 miles away.

How should American policymakers respond? Read the excerpt of The World is Flat in the latest edition of Blueprint. Better yet, read the book.

This crisis might be quiet - but it is very, very real. To increase the incomes of the middle class and those less fortunate - the true constituency of our party - Democrats must confront (rather than try to deny) these new realities, educate the American public about the big challenges facing us and provide real leadership.

Much is at stake.