Political Cortex: Brain Food for the Body Politic

The options availble in getting your ideas (or bills or resolutions) passed are:

1. Fight with all your heart to get exactly what you want;

2. Compromise to get something close to what you want accomplished;

3. Give up and do nothing;

4. Acquiesce to the ideas of others (whether the ideas were simliar or the opposite of your own).

The Democrats who use #s 1 and 2 more often than not are the ones who garner our praise, respect and backing. They have also been the ones who fall short and burn out early in election cycles. We are then left with hybrids who are more concerned with their image than their message.

Many believe they were done in for being too much: too honest, too feisty, too young, too ethnic, too liberal, too poor, and too politically inexperienced. Bobble-head strategists virtually make a living by talking about how the Democratic candidate might have had a chance if he/she had only held back.

Whatever. If President Bush has proven anything, he has proven that the masses adore a fighter (even if he is fighting the wrong war). Historically, our greatest leaders have been of the warrior/fighter guild. Currently we have been celebrating the rise of servicemen/women-turned-pol iticians, a.k.a. "Fighting Dems." It's becoming painfully obvious that if you are a fighter, you will eventually become a leader.

Then why haven't more Democrats incorporated this trait? Why haven't many of the forerunners for the 2008 election been described as "fighters?"

I submit that those Democrats who have survived the Superhero Conundrum have another hurdle to face: their own sense of nobility and fair play. While these Democrats acknowledge that letting Republicans defeat themselves comes across as lazy and cowardly, they lack the offensive aggressiveness needed to fight the Neo-Con Agenda. In other words, they need to get a little nasty; not dirty, but nasty. They need to call corrupt Republicans on their hypocrisy, scandals and misconduct. They need to take pride in being called "mean" by the opposition. They need to be prepared to get criticized for putting up their opponent's voting record when they get airtime.

But at the same time, they need to know that there is a limit: that to go too far will make them as bad as the Republicans they seek to beat. In therein lies the paradox: if Democrats were more like Republicans, they would win more; but then they wouldn't be Democrats.

To solve this, Democrats have to figure out the difference between being a "fighter" and a "cheater." They need to figure out the difference between manipulating the rules of politics to their favor versus breaking those rules. They need to wake up to the fact that their base wants their leaders to be fighters as well as diplomats.

Remember, only Optimus Prime could win fights without getting nasty.