Soft Democrats

American Thinker had an intereting article by Christopher Chantrell last week. Although his topic is Social Security, I want to focus on two thoughts which are contained in his last paragraph:

Democrats are genuinely shocked by President Bush’s strategic boldness. They understand tactics, like saying “I have a plan” in presidential debates, or mau-mauing presidents of Harvard. But they are overwhelmed by President Bush’s calculated risks in war, tax cuts, deficits, judges, and now Social Security reform. Coddled and softened by their tenured jobs and guaranteed pensions, they are frightened by people with the fortitude to create a vision, formulate a strategy, and sustain it to completion through inevitable dangers and setbacks. In strategic terms, as understood by the late John Boyd, this means that Republicans can usually get inside the Democrats’ OODA loop, fighitng them in terms and with strategies and tactics they cannot comprehend, much less vounter, and beat them like a drum.

The first thing that caught my eye was his statement about Democrats living in a soft, coddled world. This reminded me of Michael Barone's book, Hard America, Soft America: Competition vs. Coddling and the Battle for America's Future. I'm intrigued by Chantrell's implied assertion that Bush specifically (and Republicans generally) are more successful in politics today because they come from "hard" America and the Democrats come from "soft" America. I think that there may be a little merit to his point, especially as it relates to the Democrats.

Something that must be particularly distressing to a loyal Democrat surveying the political landscape in 2005 is the complete absence of a quality leader in the party. Democrats may moan about Kerry's weak effort in the last campaign, but it is likely that any of the other contenders would have been even worse. The leadership in Congress is worse than a joke. And the party seems intent on putting its hopes for 2008 on the most polarizing and most corrupt politician since Nixon.

Why do the Democrats have such a weak collection of leaders? Back in the late 90s, one of the contributors to the old Washington Weekly web site wrote that the bias and partisanship of the MSM did provide one advantage for Republican politicians. They had to learn very early to think carefully before speaking. They were battle-tested, early and often. Democrats, in contrast, can say and do a lot of stupid things with confidence that the press will cover for them. Mediocre (and worse) politicians can win a lot of elections in blue states and rise to positions of leadership in Congress without ever being battle-tested.

The second point on OODA loops will be dealt with in the next post.