As I watch the ritualistic dueling between the two national parties, it is apparent that the Republican successes of the past few years are due almost entirely to their message. In fact, it is not the content of the message that seems to matter, but the very existence of a clear, easy to explain, positive message.
President Bush should have been easy to defeat in 2004. An incumbent president taking metaphorical and literal casualties in a generally unpopular war and running on a barely-turning-around economy should have been easy pickings for an opposition candidate. In fact, the international community is, rightfully, shocked that the citizenry of the United States managed to reelect George W. Bush. Why did we send him back to office? Because the Democratic Party could not muster a candidate that had a clear and positive platform.
John Kerry turned this election into a plebiscite on President Bush, and flipflop jokes aside, was never sure what he supported. The war? Tax cuts? Public financing? Consistency was lacking. Try as he did, Senator Kerry could not convince this country that he could be strong and unwavering in the face of evil.
Has the party learned from its electoral debacle? The Democratic Party still does not seem to have any coherent position on the War on Terror or on the president's foreign policy. Other than nay-saying about the President's unpopularity abroad, the minority party still has no good response to Operation Iraqi Freedom, the fight against Al-Qaeda or the President's reliance on Sharansky-style democratization that has begun to inspire changes in Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian Authority as well as baby-steps toward personal freedom in Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
Not that the White House has been 100 percent successful — Osama Bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri are still gallivanting around the Middle East, leaving xenophobia and bomb-making expertise wherever they travel. Pakistan, an ostensible American ally, is a nuclear-capable pressure-cooker of anti-Americanism just waiting to explode. Iran and North Korea have been handled terribly, and many of the signs coming out of Iraq are not universally positive. What would the Democratic Party do differently? Where does it stand on these issues? Does it have any responses at all? The blue donkey has been rather quiet recently, offering no competing vision or framework to that which the President hands us. How can a party that can barely run an effective opposition convince Americans that it could be entrusted with welfare and the security of the country?
The same goes for Social Security. The President is crisscrossing the nation trying to sell his plan to fix the aging program. It should be an easy win for the Democrats. Up to 69 percent of Americans, The New York Times claims, think that private retirement accounts are a bad idea. The President is hemorrhaging support from his centrist Republican colleagues in Congress, driving him farther to the right. And what do the Democrats have to say about all of this? Not much. The President tells our generation to ask, "if we have a problem . . . what do you . . . intend to do about it?" and the best Senator Reid can do is quote Hippocrates in response ("Do No Harm," he instructed). While this may reassure Ivy League premeds or classics majors, it does nothing to address the problem. Where is the Democratic plan to fix Social Security? The best Senator Schumer can do is admit that it's a problem and then advocate creating a committee, which, as any budding university administrator will tell you, is the best way to kill any issue that's a thorn in your side.
Instead of simply nay-saying and claiming that Social Security doesn't need fixing, the Democratic Party should come up with a visionary proposal of its own and take to the road. A little vision would go a long way. The party should consider its views and priorities and avoid simply denigrating the proposals put out by the administration. A clear and well thought-out platform is easy to explain and a snap to understand, and it would sell well to an American populace unsure of the President's untested and often radical agenda. Americans like visionary leaders — like Washington, Lincoln, FDR and Reagan. Only one thought should haunt Howard Dean from now until midterm elections: If you can't muster a clear and positive vision of the future, don't bother running. The ball is now in his court. Matthew Gold is a politics major from New York, N.Y. He can be reached at mggold@princeton.edu.
Read More
Charlie Kirk is not the martyr conservatives want him to be
Christofer RoblesIn his piece, Editorial Board Chair Christofer Robles ’26 argues that as members of the campus right misrepresent the status of free speech on campus and Charlie Kirk’s legacy, they legitimize the federal government’s punishment of left-wing students for their political expression.
In his piece, Editorial Board Chair Christofer Robles ’26 argues that as members of the campus right misrepresent the status of free speech on campus and Charlie Kirk’s legacy, they legitimize the federal government’s punishment of left-wing students for their political expression.
BP is out. Here’s what’s next for the climate movement at Princeton
Charlie Yale and Isaac BarsoumFossil fuel companies have abandoned their deceptive climate pledges, and the Trump administration is cracking down on climate research. As governments and corporations abandon climate action, Princeton must step up as a leader on the issue.
Fossil fuel companies have abandoned their deceptive climate pledges, and the Trump administration is cracking down on climate research. As governments and corporations abandon climate action, Princeton must step up as a leader on the issue.
Public service still serves the public
Guest ContributorsIt is sometimes difficult to see the value of service in times of instability, disinvestment in public services, eroding public trust in government, and an uncertain job market. But even in times of massive turmoil, public service is still able to drive initiatives that aren’t sufficiently politicized to make newspaper headlines.
As academia and the federal workforce have adapted to rapid policy changes, the SINSI program and the students it supports have had to adapt. We are the first generation of SINSI Scholars, the SINSI program’s graduate fellows, to contend with this new era of uncertainty.