The Arbitrary ChuckJerry

Bill Bradley wrote an op-ed in the New York Times today about why the Democratic Party is losing ground to the Republicans. His basic thesis was that the Republicans have a solid base built around large donors, think tanks, and strategists. Each of these represents a higher level of a pyramid that is topped by the president. Since their values are firmly thought out and consistently dealt to the folks out there, come election time, they don't need to create them from scratch.

In contrast, here's what he says about Democrats:

"There is no clearly identifiable funding base for Democratic policy organizations, and in the frantic campaign rush there is no time for patient, long-term development of new ideas or of new ways to sell old ideas. Campaigns don't start thinking about a Democratic brand until halfway through the election year, by which time winning the daily news cycle takes precedence over building a consistent message. The closest that Democrats get to a brand is a catchy slogan."

He says we can't rely on a charismatic leader to ensure success for the Democrats either. Clinton was good, but didn't benefit the party as a whole, since there isn't a core philosophy:

"A party based on charisma has no long-term impact. Think of our last charismatic leader, Bill Clinton. He was president for eight years. He was the first Democrat to be re-elected since Franklin Roosevelt. He was smart, skilled and possessed great energy. But what happened? At the end of his tenure in the most powerful office in the world, there were fewer Democratic governors, fewer Democratic senators, members of Congress and state legislators and a national party that was deep in debt. The president did well. The party did not. Charisma didn't translate into structure."

I think that's a fair assessment of the issue for Democrats. His ultimate conclusion is that Democrats need a long term plan that will require funding and base building.

I assume he is right about the grand scale argument, and I know for certain he is right about this last election. John Kerry did not have an identity coming out of the primary. The fact that he won it and not one of the other previously unknown guys was somewhat random.

I don't agree with Bush, but I know what he stands for. Can we say the same about the top Democrats out there today? To take it a step further, can we even name the top Democrats out there today?

I love Bill Bradley. When he was running for President in 1999 I saw him speak on my campus and it was great. His ideas made so much sense. He was all about reforming the tax code and licensing firearms. I hope he stays politically active. Maybe he can run for president again at some point. I'd certainly vote for him. He's one of the best things to ever come out of New Jersey, and that's saying a lot.