The Democratic Spine

For Democrats and unaffiliated liberals, the past four years have been a disappointing slog in which Republicans have controlled the political narrative on nearly every major issue.

Healthcare reform became Obamacare, replete with death panels. The debate over the debt ceiling became a criticism of the stimulus package. The recent decision to let states determine welfare work requirements, a proposal that almost sounds Republican, became the dismantling of the American work ethic.

In terms of communication, the Democrats have demonstrated a stunning and stupefying inability to defend themselves against an efficient, ruthless, and effective Republican machine.

These recent losses have created a sizable group of disillusioned Democrats and frustrated independents shocked and dismayed by the party’s incompetence. As a result, many members of the liberal base, from fervent party supporters to liberal centrists, have become politically apathetic.

This is why the Democratic Party could never create a movement parallel to the Tea Party. This is why the Democratic Party could not mobilize the support of the Occupy Movement. And this is why the Democratic Party received a political bludgeoning during the 2010 midterm elections.

If this ineptitude continued, the Democratic Party would cease to matter as a political entity.

Yet, the Democratic National Convention last week showed a party energized, eloquent, and finally ready to rebuff the rhetoric of the Republicans.

It started on Tuesday night with an inspired speech by Massachusetts governor Deval L. Patrick ’78 (Full disclosure: I am currently an intern in the Governor’s press office). In his address, Patrick called for “Democrats to stiffen [their] backbone and stand up for what [they] believe.”

Even better, he actually stated those beliefs in a way that directly countered recent Republican criticisms.

The disillusioned have waited four years for that speech, beginning with the speeches of a certain Presidential candidate whose rhetorical skill seemingly disappeared when he entered the oval office.

The articulation and defense of Democratic ideals then became a major theme of the convention.

President Bill Clinton almost restored the Democratic message singlehandedly, delivering a speech uniquely Clintonian in its length and more substantive on policy than any other in recent memory.

We can criticize the Democratic Party for its message, but we can no longer criticize it for not having one.

However, the restoration of Democratic rhetoric may not change the tone of a campaign marred by deliberately misleading advertisements and blatant distortions of basic facts.

After the Republican nomination of Paul Ryan for vice-president, many pundits proclaimed that the candidates would finally focus on the substantive issues. Unfortunately, that never happened.

Similarly, the re-alignment of Democratic messaging may create a choice between two coherent and substantive political philosophies. That would be a welcome change.

Yet, the public space has already reached a saturation point for political messaging. Between individual politicians, party platforms, and super-PAC advertisements, most people have heard all of the talking points and have either memorized or rejected them.

Hearing those talking points, however, does not necessarily equate to understanding the issues. This election cycle in particular has shown a flagrant disregard for accuracy or clarity.

The new Democratic message may only further add to that confusion. It may copy the unfortunate style of the Republican message, which has become a shell of its original self, providing mere echoes of substantive policy discussion.

There remains a glimmer of hope that the rhetoric of last week’s convention will mark a positive turning point for the Democratic Party. It has finally regained its footing in defense of liberalism. Both parties now have an articulate defense of their respective philosophies.

Politicians can passionately defend and debate their beliefs, like last week’s convention speakers, or they can reduce them to sound bites that preclude any attempt at serious discussion. It may be unfortunately easy to predict the path that they will take.

Raul Quintana ’14, a crimson editorial writer, is a Social Studies concentrator in Leverett House.