If Democrats are serious about preparing for the next election or the next election after that, some influential Democrats will have to resist entrusting their dreams to individual candidates and instead make a commitment to build a stable pyramid from the base up.
As far as it goes, he makes good sense, but his definition of the 'pyramid' is basically structural, not ideological. Sure, you need a pyramid to implement your strategy, but what is your strategy? Bradley notes that the Democratic candidates these days have to find their vision on the fly:
they don't simply have to assemble a campaign apparatus - they have to formulate ideas and a vision, too
But if the Democrats aren't running to implement their vision what are they running for?
To my mind, Bradley ignored the elephant in the living room: Security.
Look at any poll taken at any time since 9/11. Look for any question that asks, Which party do you trust more to keep another 9/11 attack from happening?. The Republicans win by 20 points or more. Where in the Democratic 'pyramid' is the Democratic vision that will allow them to compete with the Republican 'pyramid'? What is their understanding of what happened on 9/11, what is happening now, how to keep America safe in the future?
I have received one coherent Republican message in answer to those questions. But the Democrats have been all over the map, from those who thought that Clinton's policies of treating terrorism as crime should be continued, to those who agree with the Republicans, to anywhere in between - and many Democrats have been avoiding the issue altogether, as if it didn't really matter.
Security is an important question. IMO, the Democrats need to have a message if they want to be trusted with power again. |
