Democrat's "philosophy"

Peggy Noonan:

The Democratic Party is that amazing thing, out of power for six years and yet exhausted. They're pale, tired and unready. Too bad, since it's their job to be an alternative, not an embarrassment.

This week Democratic members of Congress and other elected officials unveil their "New Direction for America," the party's declaration of its reason for being. It said it stands firmly and unequivocally, without fear or favor, unwaveringly and with grit for . . . reducing the cost of student loans. And making prescription drugs less expensive. And raising the minimum wage. Etc.

This is not a philosophy but a way--an inadequate way, but a way--of hiding the fact that you don't have a philosophy.

One can argue about why the Democratic Party no longer seems to have a reason for being. I believe the reason is this: They have achieved what they set out to achieve in 1932, when the modern Democratic Party began. They got what they asked for, achieved what they fought for. They got a big government that offers a wide array of benefits and assistance; they got a powerful federal establishment that collects and dispenses treasure, that assumes societal guidance. They got Social Security and Medicare. They got civil rights (much murky history there, the Southern Democratic lions of the U.S. Senate having retarded the modern civil rights movement from 1940 through 1964; still, by the late '60s Democrats came to seem to own the issue, and that hasn't changed). They got what they stood for. They went on, in the 1970s and '80s, to stand for things about which Americans showed they had doubts and ambivalence: abortion, the modernist social agenda. By the time the Democrats ran out that string, they got tagged for the cost of their dreams. Big government is expensive, and the American people didn't enjoy being forced to pay, through high taxes, for the pleasure of being pushed around.

Also the Democrats, since 1968, hate war. But that's not really a philosophy. No one likes war, or no one who's normal. The real difference is between those who think war is bad and must never be fought and those who think it's bad but sometimes must be fought. The vast majority of voters are in the latter camp.

A second reason the Democratic Party has trouble knowing what it stands for, and thus articulating its purpose, is that it is so spooked by polls, focus groups and past defeats that it's afraid to take any vivid and differentiating stands, and seeks refuge in the muck of small issues. But small issues are small. And in this case don't even offer a philosophical pattern. "We stand for lower college loan costs and better prescription drug benefits." That's something you'd die on the battlefield for, isn't it?

...

Uhh, No. Democrats practice the politics of fraud because they know if they told the truth they would never get a majority of votes. That is one of the interesting aspects of the "netroots" or nutroots movement among the Dem left. They want the party to stop being ashamed of being liberals. In their own profane way, they want the Democrats to say what they really stand for. This objective keeps bumping up against the reality that most people reject liberalism. John Kerry is a perfect example of this internal debate between his pragmatic side and his anti war side. The two get together and try to stradle the issues of war and defeat and call it smart. You see echos of the debate of "smart" policies in Sen. Clinton's recent speech to the left wing anti war groups who booed her. Smart is not popular with them only defeat and retreat. They can look at the removal of a genocidal despot and say nothing has been accomplished.