Where Left Is Right / The Old Site

No, I'm not talking about killing the vampire that is the right wing (though I might be). What he did in his speech today at GWU was demarcate the territory that is traditionally, rightly that not only of the Democratic Party but also of America as a whole -- and to declare everything else, everything outside that territory, inimical to those principles and inimical to the party's future. Starting first and foremost with the notion, put forth by some, that we need to move to the center:

Here in Washington, it seems that after every losing election, there's a consensus reached among decision-makers in the Democratic Party is that the way to win is to be more like Republicans.

I suppose you could call that philosophy: if you didn't beat 'em, join them.

I'm not one for making predictions -- but if we accept that philosophy this time around, another Democrat will be standing here in four years giving this same speech. we cannot win by being "Republican-lite." We've tried it; it doesn't work.
...
When some people say we should change direction, in essence they are arguing that our basic or guiding principles can be altered or modified.

They can't.

On issue after issue, we are where the majority of the American people are.

What I want to know is at what point did it become a radical notion to stand up for what we believe?

Over fifty years ago, Harry Truman said, "We are not going to get anywhere by trimming or appeasing. And we don't need to try it."

As you probably know, the Doctor is not speaking here just for the sake of argument; he is (as of today) the leading candidate to replace Terry Macauliffe as chair of the DNC. Thus, the territory he's staking out is specifically that of the Democratic Party under his leadership. This is something of a calculated risk, of course; any time you lay out a Declaration of Principles (cf. Charles Foster Kane), you're flirting with the possibility that it's going to blow up in your face at some future time:

• You might have to renege on a promise, for reasons unforeseen at the time the promise was made.
• Even given unchanged circumstances, you might simply change your mind. "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."
• Even given a consisent vision and consistent circumstances, you may not be able to deliver: your work may be sabotaged by opponents; you may have to compromise for the sake of a larger good (the "picking your battles" issue), and so on.

Thus, Dean is sticking his neck out here. He's betting that the DNC will (a) attend to the grassroots (where everything he says has already attained the status of received wisdom), and (b) vote -- for once -- for principles rather than politics.

You go, Howard.