Dem vs. Dem

There’s a whole lot of yakkin’ going on about how the Democrats are fighting among themselves and not keeping a coordinated message and how there needs to be more discipline and all that. The idea is that if there One Great Leader with One Great Message, the Reps would be toast in the upcoming general elections and on the way, the Dems could win back a position in the national government.

I don’t think so.

Conservative pundit and NPR commentator David Brooks recently wrote that one of the secrets to conservatism’s success is that it didn’t insist on a one-size-fits-all creed or message. “Conservatism” became something that right wing Christian fundamentalists, economic libertarians and people who are just plain cheap can all see something in, even if (as these pages have noted) their particular flavor of conservatism might actually clash with another’s.

But all politics is indeed local, and the advantage of such descriptive flexibility is that the GOP could offer the particular brand of “conservatism” favored by a particular electoral district. I can admire that.

I think liberals and progressives should do the same. I already see the difference between my former Democratic majority homes in the inner San Francisco Bay Area and my current Democratic majority home in Sacramento, California. Gun control is a required position in my old stomping grounds. It’s not even on the radar here. Anti-growth down there is “smart” growth around here. But on other issues, like health care and defense, there’s not a lot of difference. Both Democratic, both alike in some ways, different on others.

Diehards might point out that failing to create agreed-upon lockstep positions while out of power results in fussing and fighting when you’re in power. This can happen. Current fights in the congressional GOP on spending certainly find that.

But isn’t it better to have the fight on the majority side of the aisle? I certainly think so. And I'd like to find out.