Reflections on Elections Part 1

I have not posted for awhile for two reasons. First, it has been tough to keep up (let alone stay ahead of) the good work being done in the blogosphere. Second, finding the time to be thoughtful has been more of a challenge then I expected. But with the elections behind us I wanted to reflect on several themes and mems and try and add to the debate.

First off, there seems to be a general theme that the Democratic Party needs to rethink its position on issues (social, economic, national security) and move to the center. Magnanimous of the right to suggest that, but totally unecessary. There is nothing in this election the Democrats should take to mean that their underlying principles have been rejected. This elections was about tactics, not strategy. And the loss relects the judgment of the electorate that, at this point, the tactics we are employing are fine. In two or four years, the same thing may not hold.

I believe this holds true to the three big issues voters identified: GWOT/Iraq, moral values and the economy. I think the GWOT/Iraq was framed (by the Republicans as the party in power) as a choice between pro-active and reactive tactics. While Senator Kerry was forceful in his statements that he would "hunt down and kill" the terrorists, the real unanswered question was when? Before they kamikaze a fully fueled plane into the Magic Kingdom during winter break? Or after? The Republicans were able to establish (in the minds of the electorate) that the answer was "after." This was especially true after Senator Kerry's remarks about bringing terrorism down to a nuisance level. What's a nuisance? 50 dead? 500 dead? 5,000 dead? This implied there was a level of "acceptable losses" to the Senator. The electorate knew the level of "acceptable losses" to the President - zero.

I do not believe anyone was confused that Senator Kerry's strategy - "hunt down and kill" the terrorists - was substantially different that the President's.

Of course, Iraq was also a tactical debate. Should we be there? How long should we stay? How much leadership de we provide to the world? What is the role of allies? The UN? Are all allies equal? Or are certain allies (French and Germans) more important than others (British and Australians)? (One could argue that there was a broader strategy debate on these questions and issues of regime change and spreading democracy, but I do not think that question was part of the electorate's calculus. This time.)

Now tactically, I think is was very clear what the position of the candidates was. The electorate certainly had a distinct choice. Coming back to the idea of the Democrats not moving to the center, it is not clear to me that faced with the same choices in 2008, the electorate might opt for a different approach. If the Democratic Party believes in its 2004 positions, I do not see any reason to change.

On to "moral values" in Part 2.