Fineman says something interesting in his Huffpost piece entitled "'Democrat' Is No Longer A Brand". Some excerpts:
As the lame duck tax debate slogs towards its inevitable conclusion — nearly $1 trillion worth of extended and new tax cuts over two years — I'm wondering: what does the brand "Democrat" mean?
If anything.
The Republicans don't have a cool logo but their economic brand is vivid. They're the folks who worship the market, or at least claim to. They always want to cut taxes. They pile up deficits while decrying them. They favor pat-a-cake business regulation. . . .
So Obama's brand now is: I'm a non-ideological, deal-doing, practical, adult in a sea of extremes and I will somehow get us on that sunny road. Now he's Barry the Cable Guy. He'll "git-r-done."
At least that's the pitch.
But that leaves Democrats trying to figure out who or what they are. It leaves them looking for leaders, ideas and symbols with which to sell their brand, whatever it now is, in the political marketplace.
Isn't a nearly $1 trillion bill full of tax cuts and industry giveaways what Republicans do? Isn't a bill with an absurdly generous inheritance tax break what Republicans write? Aren't Democrats the "party of the people?" Aren't they the party that believes government programs and policies have a role to play in leveling the playing field, or at least giving everyone a fair chance? Aren't the Democrats worried that all of this tax cutting now will starve the social programs they supposedly cherish? Do they know that they won't be able to push through a change in taxes in 2012 over GOP objections if the economy in fact improves?
Maybe the answer to all of these questions is "no," because it looks now as if most Democrats are going to vote for the bill in the end.
I think that's a pretty cogent explanation for part of the reason why the Dems are perceived as such feckless losers who don't stand for anything. It's also why I believe that realignment now means breaking the two-party system up. There is essentially one party now that represents first and foremost the interests of the superwealthy, and it comprises a right wing and a moderate wing. Obama represents the moderate wing. It's better to have a moderate in power than someone from the right wing, but there's just no party representing the substantive interests of ordinary Americans
The Democrats as they exist now seem very like the Whigs of the 19th Century. Those Whigs had lost their focus and any real sense about what they stood for, and a new party was formed out of abolitionist Whigs and anti-secessionist Democrats. Something has to give with the Dems. I don't know how long it will take to happen, or how exactly it will be configured, but it's the only solution.
Leave a Reply