2006 + 2 =

I was leafing through The Economist this morning and came across another article mentioning how the Democrats could be in for some delightful things if they'd only get their act together. Although the article, and ones like it, don't put it this way, what they're saying is 'Why can't the Democrats.... be more like the Republicans?'

When the Republicans speak, they make the same points, frequently with the same words. (Not as much now as before, but still pretty common). They don't exactly pull out index cards with Things To Say Today on it, but you almost feel as if they do have them. (Who knows, maybe they do! Not index cards, but a daily email of Talking Points, sent out from the Republican bunker somewhere under Omaha? Not out of the question.) They pound on the same concepts, they offer not only the same solutions, but the same limited number -- ie, they don't say that Problem X needs to be solved, and here are ten alternatives, they say Problem X needs to be solved, and here is the primary best way to fix it, period.

Democrats frequently don't agree on The problem, and when they do, they don't agree on the solution -- and when they manage to agree on both the problem and the solution, they don't agree on how to implement it, or what it will cost. What comes out is a vague sense of unease and 'something should be done', but no focused energy. You get the sense (at least, I do, but maybe that's not common) that the Democrats care more about solving the problem (particularly if its a societal problem) than the Republicans do, but you also get the sense that the Republicans are significantly more likely to have A Solution, and a plan to get it implemented.

People want solutions. They've got enough to think about and worry about that they don't want to have to figure out if Social Security really is going away, and whether oil is going to go to ten dollars a gallon, and whether drilling in ANWR is the right thing to do, and whether schools are getting adequate funding, and what about the ozone layer. They have bits and pieces that they care about, sporadically, some more consistently than others, but what they want is to be able to hand the problems off to a bunch of people who look like they've got answers. And Republicans, more often than not, look that way, a lot more than Democrats do. So even if you don't particularly like the solutions that the Republicans come up with, at least you have the cold comfort (or dawning horror) that they are more likely to implement their solutions because they're more focused, more linear, more 'on-message'. They push things through and they get things done. If you want intellectual stimulation, you talk to the Democrats. If you want things done, talk to the Republicans. None of this has to do with the rightness or wrongness of what they're proposing for this problem or that. It just has to do with the question of whether the party can get what it wants implemented. Republicans can. Democrats can't. If tomorrow morning a white knight rode into town with the shield of the Democratic party on his or her hip, ducats to doughnuts by midnight the other Democrats would be pointing out why that white knight was off base and why their solutions were better. If the Republican equivalent showed up, someone in that bunker under Omaha would be waiting with oats for the horse and polish for the shield.

How do we fix this? Well, for starters, we answer this: Is it more important to be intellectually right or to be fairly right and electable? Me, I vote for the latter. I would much rather see Democrats in office (though with a strong opposition; I've seen what one-party rule does to either side) but right now whats more important is finding someone who has decent ideas and can get them implemented, regardless of which side of the aisle they come from. I want a Democrat with Republican organization; a Republican with Democratic attitudes. I don't want success at any cost, but I want success at a reasonable cost. The person who can do that -- who embodies those attitudes, those virtues -- must exist. I believe that. I want to vote for that person. I'm not sure where to find this person, but I'm looking.

Finding them is the question. Where do you start? How do you start? Because I've got Political Attention Deficit Disorder. I can think intently about how important this is....for about twenty minutes. And then its off to Gee, I wonder if we have any cookies sin the house, and Gee, I wonder what that sound was, and Gee, wouldn't it be nice to have a big honkin' television with a great selection of things to watch? And I don't come back to it for days, weeks, months. At which point I start again at the beginning, wondering which issues are important

Okay, here's one criteria: gun control and gun owners rights. (Did I just eliminate about 80% of the candidates?)

Here's another: fiscal prudence.

And a third: global warming. The candidate doesn't have to promise to always act as the Sierra Club wants, but should know what the tradeoffs are and be able to speak intelligibly about them.

(Oh, hell, why not say it: I want Jed Bartlett!)