A long term Democratic loss is not what Matt Bai predicts in a recent interview, but that's what emerges from his arguments. You build long term majorities by having a compelling political idea, what Bai calls an "argument," not just by getting in office. An "argument," Bai says in the interview, is "an idea that is critical for the future of the country, for government to adapt to changing times, for transformation..."
Matt Bai: ...Should you use your money to have people door-knocking in Kansas when there aren’t a whole lot of Democrats in Kansas and it makes the party less of a progressive juggernaut? Should you use your money to put up advertising in Ohio, because Ohio matters every four years and you know you can win Ohio, so why aren’t you putting all your money there? The underlying supposition is that you can use money to build a long-term majority and enact change. You had a caller who said earlier, I think it was Juan, who said something I hear very often – which is, the way you change the country is to get in power. And I address this very specifically in the book. There’s something to that. But there’s such a faith in the idea that the way you change the country is to elect Democrats that I think a lot of Democrats have forgotten to ask themselves why. And that you don’t actually just change the country by winning elections, you change it by what you do when you get there. In fact, I would argue that the reverse is true. You actually win elections long term – build long-term majorities – by changing the country. History proves that point more than it does the reverse.
NPR: And do you hear any of the presidential candidates who now, because of the accelerated primaries, are in a race in full swing, of course. But do you hear any of the presidential candidates talk about anything that seems outside of the Democratic orthodoxy?
MB: Well, you have seen Senator Obama, interestingly, in the last couple of months begin give a series of speeches, some of them quietly, where he has taken on some of the interest group orthodoxies of the party. He certainly has begun to put some substance behind the generational theme of his campaign in areas like education and somewhat in foreign policy and on poverty, too. So that’s interesting to me. But I would say that the short answer is “no.” At this point there has not been a terribly compelling argument. The campaign has been largely about trying to compete for the new progressive movement and for the party’s old interest groups.
