The Framers

Since the 2004 election, our nation has witnessed the rise of the Framers. No, I’m not talking about the dead white guys who wrote our Constitution. I’m talking about the very-much-alive white guys who advise the Democratic Party. The Framers don’t necessarily think that their party should stick with the same policies, but they generally believe that the Democrats must change how they talk about policies, not the policies they talk about. There’s just one problem: Republicans can frame too, and they have Fox News. If the Democrats want to reframe the debate, they had better focus on the substantive, not the rhetorical, differences between the two parties.

The latest Framer to make a stir outside of the narrow world of Democratic activists is Michael Tomasky. He argues that Democrats need to move away from the interest group politics that has characterized the party since the 1960s and start talking about the “common good.” Since the late 1960s, according to Tomasky, the Democratic Party has spent its energy worrying about the interests of individual oppressed groups—blacks, gays, etc.—instead of the good of the nation as a whole. He goes to great lengths to emphasize his respect for what the Democrats’ focus on multiculturalism has accomplished; he just thinks it’s time to move on. Tomasky’s Democratic Party would give Americans an outlet for their desire to transcend self interest (and group interest) and serve their community. But in constructing his grand vision, Tomasky, like the rest of the Framers, largely ignores policy. Although he admits that policies must play a role in shaping the Democratic Party, he argues that “voters don’t, and should not be expected to, respond to policies.”

If the switch in public discourse away from the common good wasn’t entirely the product of Democratic decisions, a return to the common good may not be a simple matter of choice. Even if Democrats could return to the political climate of 1960, they would still have a serious problem: The Democrats may want to be the party of the common good, but I doubt the Republicans want to be seen as the party of private interests. At least not without a push.

Republicans don’t wake up each day hoping to undermine the common good. But Republicans do differ from Democrats, and some of those differences boil down to disagreements about whether to serve private interests or the public good. If Democrats want to highlight these differences, they have to talk about policy.

Democrats have plenty of policies that serve the public interest. They could talk about their positions on education, on taxes, or on almost anything else. But talking about policies doesn’t mean that people will focus on them. In 2004, John Kerry had a healthcare plan that would have helped the most vulnerable and lowered costs for businesses—all at a fairly low price to the taxpayer. The Republicans almost never talked about it; Democrats couldn’t change the subject. Of course, it’s not always possible to put Democratic issues on the agenda. In 2004, foreign policy had a strong claim on voter attention. But if Democrats want to switch the focus of debate, they’re eventually going to have to try something that may feel unfamiliar: They’re going to have to take a stand.

To understand what I’m getting at, imagine that the next Democratic presidential candidate calls for a single payer healthcare system. With easy money from the insurance industry, the Republicans would go after the Democrat with guns blazing. Suddenly, the media is talking about healthcare, voters are seeing advertisements about healthcare, and the election starts to look completely different. Centrist Democrats in 2004 advised Kerry to stop talking about “social” issues so that the election could be fought on the bread and butter issues that Democrats have historically won on. But if Democrats want to talk about healthcare, they have to say something worth listening to. Kerry’s poll-tested compromise solution never captured the spotlight. A single payer solution would.

Single payer healthcare isn’t an easy issue. Republicans would focus on it because they think they can win by opposing it, confident that the “reciprocal trust between state and nation” is so thoroughly shot that a cry of “socialism” will settle any argument. Democrats will have the difficult task of convincing voters that government can do something right. But what a great task. Economists from all over the political map acknowledge that the private insurance market doesn’t work. Government insurance programs like Medicare are efficient, effective, and popular. Healthcare is a perfect issue for showing voters how a public program can correct the excesses of the private market.

Tomasky presents a compelling strategy for Democrats, but his plan is incomplete. If Democrats want to talk about the common good, they must pick policies that will force the Republicans to discuss politics on those terms. Tomasky may be the best of the Framers, but substance, not framing, is what makes the Democratic Party great. Tomasky’s article claims to be about the “virtue of standing for something.” But if Democrats are going to stand for something, let’s stand for a plan, not a frame.



Samuel M. Simon ’06 is a social studies concentrator in Eliot House. His column appears on alternate Thursdays.