Quinn-tessential Conventional Wisdom

Sally Quinn has a long article in the Outlook section of today’s Washington Post that has the virtue of collecting in one place a good deal of the emerging Conventional Wisdom about where the Democrats go from here.

Quinn does add some nice anti-Clinton touches, such as stressing the need “to get past the moral relativism that came to typify the Clinton era.” What happened on Nov. 5, she writes, “was that Bush (and all that he stands for) beat Clinton (and all that he doesn’t stand for).” Because of Clinton, she argues, “Democrats have lost the high ground. They have lost their perceived position as the morally superior party.” Who exactly, other than the Democrats of course, had that perception?

But it turns out to be the Democrats of whom Quinn is speaking. And once you look beneath the anti-Clinton gloss, Quinn mainly reiterates the need for the Democrats to develop a “message,” along of course with a “messenger” other than Terry McAuliffe. She implies that it doesn’t matter so much what the message is. She thus approvingly quotes journalist William Greider:

Bush conveys the sense he believes in something. I don’t see how the Democrats can get clear of Clinton [who obviously doesn’t]. Only if they get a strong nominee, they might be able to change things.

So, what the Democrats need is … someone who gives the appearance of believing something. That same message, as it were, is contained in a Dan Balz story that also appears in the Post today that concludes with Balz quoting a “Democratic veteran of the 2000 campaign” who said, “It’s about leadership. Someone who conveys strength…. [Voters] want somebody they can follow.” Presumably just about anywhere. The message, thus, gets lost in the search for the messenger who, as Balz puts it, “can lead the party out of the wilderness.”

Quinn concludes her article with what “Democratic operatives” know: that

Bush and the Republicans will roll the Democrats again and again until the Democrats finally convey the sense that they really believe in something. Prominent members of the party are acknowledging the breadth of the problem that Gore mentioned last summer: that if the Democrats are going to stage a comeback, they have to find candidates, not consultants and fundraisers, who will let it rip. The question remains, where?

No, it doesn’t. The question remains, what? As Clinton would say, the success of the Democrats depends on what the meaning of “it” is.

Say What? (1)

  1. Dodd November 18, 2002 at 3:28 pm | | Reply

    It’s the Hawkeye Pierce strategy: “Sincerity is the key – if you can fake that, you’ve got it made.”

Say What?