I thought about calling this irregular series of diaries stratergy (or is it strategery) 101, but I thought it sounded a bit pedantic and, besides, I couldn't spell it.
I want to focus on the WORLD AFTER BUSH. Please excuse the caps, but it is that soon-to-be eternal moment that gets me up in the morning and keeps me hopeful. Remember: worst president ever probably applies to the future as well as the past.
We need to think carefully and collectively about that future. It is too soon to pick a candidate, but not too soon to start to frame 2008. The right frame might provide common themes for 2006 and could help to shape, and maybe even help to pick, the right candidate for 2008.
One of the things I think Kos' book is going to argue that one size fits all politics is (forgive me) hard work. Different candidates and approaches are needed in America's very different regional and state constituencies. In short, we need stand strong on things that really count, but at the same time to build a big tent party. I agree. I hope I have it right that he is saying this too.
We all also know that there are limits to compromise - both moral and practical limits. Most important practically, Presidential candidates cannot be all things to all people and most important morally, triangulating sucks. You have to stand for something and to care about it deeply. Practically, people see through insincerity in an instant.
Presidential campaigns need themes that our diverse local candidates are comfortable with, themes that also at the same time energize the base and can attract moderates -- people who, sensibly enough, mostly just don't think much about politics. We need unifying themes that pull all of that together with a tone that is positive, forward-looking, and clear. And, themes that are also bold and that resonate.
One possible theme that might resonate without alienating is an open Presidency. Under this broad heading a campaign could assert at least three things.
First, a candidate could say something like: As President I will never screen my public audiences for political loyalty. There should be no loyalty test for Americans who want to see, meet or listen to the President of the United States. S/he might even add that people in the audience are welcome to show signs that express disagreement. Then the candidate can add: "you cannot staple those disagreements to a baseball bat in crowded meeting halls, but you will always be free to express them in a civil manner both now and when I am President."
Say further, then, after the applause dies down, that: "I intend to be President of all the people, not just a narrow base," and then "that is what an open Presidency is all about."
This may result in an influx of wingnuts with signs at Democratic campaign rallies, but I am convinced that they will soon realize that their presence only reinforces our point and creates a visible difference between the campaigns. Most of them will just go away -- or not, to our advantage.
Second, a candidate might say: When I am President, my Press Secretary will not stonewall press conferences. If she or he does so more than once or twice, they will be looking for another job. The candidate can then put forward the, to us, seemingly strange claim that the press corps is brilliant and probing and allow that no press secretary can know all answers on the spot. Say, then, that when my Press Secretary needs some time they will just say so and they will get back to you and through you to the American people. Then offer a pledge that at the beginning of each press conference after the election the first questions will go to those whose questions were deferred and then repeat the theme: that is what an open Presidency is all about.
This should improve press coverage of the campaign and will make a lot of sense to anyone who has ever seen Scotty (or whoever might replace him) for more than two minutes.
Third, and most important, say right up front, out loud and repeatedly that part of being President involves understanding this: avoiding winning-at-all-costs against domestic political opponents does not make you a loser. Say it again slowly and then add: on the contrary, avoiding winning-at-all-costs is what makes democracy work. It is what real strength and real leadership is all about. And, then: "Hear this: in my administration there will be no more fear-mongering. I will not use foreign enemies -- real, imagined, or just convenient -- for domestic political advantage. NEVER" (I couldn't resist one more cap).
Then say something like this: "Playing political games with fear undermines America's security and that of every other nation on this planet. Doing so repeatedly, as we have seen for the past eight years, is a continuous and profound insult to American democracy. We cannot spread democracy elsewhere if we cannot live it in exemplary fashion here at home. That is the very heart of what an open Presidency is all about."
And as a bonus: "Nor will my administration engage in `slander on the sly' (patent pending on that phrase). I will swiftboat no one, nor will anyone working directly, or indirectly, for the Democratic Party. That is part of an open Presidency too.
Wrap this up with: democracies work best when the political discussion is about honest and real differences of opinion regarding real issues, not about false rumors, outright lies and character assassination. That is what an open Presidency is all about.
Now let's get on to discussing some of those honest differences: health care, a living wage for all working Americans, balanced budgets through cutting pork and making taxation fairer, and facing up to tough challenges like energy and climate change, etc. etc.
What do you think? What else needs to be there? I am sure that there are more aspects of an open Presidency that could be added and I am very interested in thinking collectively about other possible themes. I'll re-diary some of the highlights from the comments. Remember the goal is to simultaneously fire up the activists and to get the attention of the inattentive. Another goal is to run against the past eight years without dwelling on it and while mostly looking to the future in a positive way.