A good example of why Dems lose

Mike Tomasky, a writer at The American Prospect, posted a really fascinating article yesterday about the philosophical and tactical problems that burden the current Democratic Party. I know I toss around the phrase “must read” from time to time, but this is a really good one.

Tomasky makes a legitimate observation about current events. The two most significant political stories of the last two weeks were Sen. Rick Santorum’s idiotic comments about gays and the right to privacy, and the Republican National Committee’s announcement about the scheduling of its nominating convention next year. Both generated media attention, but Santorum news clearly overwhelmed RNC news.

While I’d argue that the Santorum controversy was more, shall we say, provocative to the public because it involved sex, Tomasky makes a compelling point: that Democrats went berserk over Santorum and largely ignored the RNC story when the impact of each meant the emphasis should have been reversed.

To be sure, I think Democrats probably had a glimmer of hope that the firestorm surrounding Santorum may have forced him from his leadership post in the Senate, the same way Trent Lott’s racism charges forced him to leave his post earlier this year. Dem congressional leaders, therefore, swung for the fences. We now see that didn’t work out the way they planned. Santorum’s reputation has clearly taken a hit, and his chances for national office have probably diminished, but his leadership post is safe. Dems garnered a week of embarrassing articles and columns for Santorum, but now the story seems to have largely faded away.

Tomasky’s point is that the Democrats’ priorities were out of whack. While he describes Santorum’s remarks as “ignorant and hateful,” Tomasky argues that strategically savvy Dems should be putting even more emphasis on correcting the public perception that Republicans are more reliable and trustworthy on national security issues. Tomasky’s essay explains that Democrats know “how to address the particular concerns of its loyal constituencies but has little purchase on how to speak broadly to more general concerns.” He makes a compelling argument.

The GOP’s announcement about the unprecedented late scheduling of the Republican National Convention, Tomasky argues, is “in every way more offensive and shocking than any idiocy that tumbled out of Santorum’s mouth.”

“For the entire history of the two-party system in this country, the parties have had a gentlemen’s agreement that the conventions will take place before Labor Day, with the real, head-to-head campaigning to commence thereafter,” Tomasky wrote. “But as we know very well, we are no longer dealing with gentlemen. So now the Republicans announce that they are going to meet in New York City about three miles from Ground Zero as near to the anniversary of the tragedy as possible. And they in essence acknowledge, discreetly but quite openly, that the purpose is to squeeze as much political gain out of the attacks, and the national-security issue, as they can.”

And instead of just ranting about the outrage, Tomasky lays out a plan for what Democrats should do about this affront to decency. Among the points of his strategy, Tomasky argues Dems should get the senators from New York and New Jersey to “denounce this rancid politicization of tragedy” at a press conference to start letting the public know about this controversy. In addition, Dems should announce that “because the Republicans have tossed 150 years of history and decorum out the window, Democrats are reconvening their own convention committee and exploring the possibility of rescheduling their convention for late August.”

Like Tomasky, I doubt the Dems will follow-up on this, but I wish they would. Until Democrats learn to be as ruthless as Republicans, we’ll keep losing on Election Day.