What Should the Democrats Do? (8 Letters)

From the NY TIMES letters section. Food for thought.

August 8, 2005

What Should the Democrats Do? (8 Letters)

To the Editor:

Jim Wallis ("The Message Thing," Op-Ed, Aug. 4) articulates a strongly centrist vision of the Democratic Party, in which family values, religious ideals and homeland security define policy at every turn. He somehow believes that this is the way to wrest control from the Republicans, who are, of course, the champions of these same values.

One recalls Ralph Nader's famous characterization of the two parties and their candidates during the 2000 campaign: Tweedledee and Tweedledum. How are we Americans to feel enthusiastic about a Democratic Party that simply presents a moderation of the status quo?

The United States is engaged in an ideological struggle whose outcome will define its future. Republicans are perfectly aware of this, and are fighting (and winning) with exceptional vigor. Democrats can join the battle with equal vigor, offering a real, radical alternative, or they can lay down their arms.

Republican Lite is not going to bring voters to the booths in 2008 any more than it did in 2004 or 2000.

Mark Post
Bundoora, Australia, Aug. 5, 2005
•

To the Editor:

Language is not "clearly important in politics." It is politics. And a message that doesn't get out is no message at all.

For Jim Wallis to suggest that narrative is not as important in swaying voters is more dangerous to the future of the Democratic Party than anything the Republicans can peddle. And peddling is exactly the discipline the Democrats lack.

Put some good, old-fashioned ad man to the task, and Karl Rove would at least have a run for his donors' money.

Howard Reed
Saugerties, N.Y., Aug. 4, 2005
•

To the Editor:

I agree with Jim Wallis that the Democrats "must offer new ideas and a fresh agenda." But Mr. Wallis's agenda, whatever its short-term utility, doesn't fit the bill. It is little more than a series of old left-wing religious ideas with a few accommodations to the right thrown in.

I wish Mr. Wallis had taken this opportunity to support the creation of a progressive infrastructure for genuinely fresh ways of thinking and speaking.

Andrew T. Jacobs
Smallwood, N.Y., Aug. 4, 2005
•

To the Editor:

Jim Wallis is the best person in America to advise Democrats and Republicans on how to talk the talk and walk the walk that genuine spirituality requires.

Democrats should never cede the religious values vote to Republicans.

Democrats are doing the right thing by seeking to improve their campaigning on, and talking about, values issues.

God is neither a Democrat nor a Republican, and Republicans certainly do not have a corner on moral and spiritual values. Mr. Wallis is correct in advising Democrats to come up with a values vision that gives the party a compelling message to take to the American people.

Paul L. Whiteley Sr.
Louisville, Ky., Aug. 4, 2005
•

To the Editor:

Jim Wallis says, "The discussion that shapes our political future should be one about moral values." While values definitely count, it takes more to win elections.

Political leadership is the act of saying where our country can get to in the future. For the Republicans, the future is pure win-lose. To the Democrats, the goal is a future where everyone prospers. Unfortunately, they haven't figured out the "values" for getting there.

This clash of worldviews is at the heart of today's struggle. And the Democrats are traumatized by the "take no prisoners" aspect of the Republicans' goal.

Until the Democrats declare the Republican worldview to be obsolete and offer a clear plan for getting to the future they know in their hearts we can get to, the Republicans will beat them in every election to come.

Steven G. Brant
Bryn Mawr, Pa., Aug. 4, 2005
•

To the Editor:

The Democrats' presidential candidate in 2004, John Kerry, adhered to Jim Wallis's policy prescription closely. Senator Kerry opposed tax policies that favor the rich over the poor, championed strong environmental protection and offered more credible international leadership than his opponent. Voters ignored this.

Although writers and political pundits never tire of deriding the Democratic Party for its failure in 2004, it is for some reason verboten to place the blame where it properly belongs: the American people.

Craig Welter
Washington, Aug. 4, 2005
•

To the Editor:

Many of Jim Wallis's ideas make good sense, but I must strenuously object to his comment "Democrats need to think past catchphrases, like 'a woman's right to choose.' "

The decision for any medical procedure is between the patient and his or her doctor. The right to choose what is to be done or not done to one's body is no catchphrase.

Beverly Ball Chassler
New York, Aug. 4, 2005
•

To the Editor:

Jim Wallis called it perfectly. The issues that he pegs as crucial to Americans and to the success of the Democratic Party were not just sampled from a pool of potential controversies du jour but rather will resonate through the future of our politics.

Granted, politicians should choose their words and postures with an eye toward public perception. But as the Democrats' Chicken Little-esque strategy of indiscriminate naysaying gets shriller by the week, we await progressive leaders who will conscientiously identify core objectives and pragmatically set out to achieve what they can.

To Mr. Wallis's sage advice "Find the vision first, and the language will follow," I would only add, "and do it soon."
Bennett Myers
Hinckley, Minn., Aug. 4, 2005