Wordcruncher

Deconstructing The Structure

Perhaps my running theme has either not been very well expressed or is too abstract. Either way, I hope to change that. I’d like to see this seriously considered as the way Democrats think, talk and act. Perhaps it requires a kind of effort to view the structure of the debate and see how it naturally shapes the content of the debate.

My argument is that Democrats cannot win the debate in its existing structure. It was, in fact, designed specifically for them to fail – as a Republican in the early 90s (subject for a later post), I observed with glee its beginnings. It was revolutionary.

To change this and win, we must first examine the structure and learn everything about it. Then we can start the task of changing the structure to more fairly allow our collective voice to be heard.

Think of it as a house. The structure of the house – foundation, walls, roof, etc. – is the structure of the public debate. The interior of the house – floor covering, paint, furniture, pictures, etc. – is the content of the debate. In both cases, the shape of the structure has bearing on its content.

Presidential debates are a perfect example. Rather than engaging in a formal debate, the two sides negotiate the format to best suit the candidate. The Bush and Clinton teams favored less formal debate settings and structure because they wanted to show their candidates as being more casual and conversational, like the average voter. They negotiated to change the structure, the better to control the content.

The only way I can think to grasp the existing structure is to take it apart and examine it brick-by-brick. I necessarily must use examples to illustrate my points. Interestingly, the examples I used were controversial enough to spark a spirited yet civil discussion in the commentary following the post. Which, in a sideways sort of way, advanced my thesis.

(Please note that I am not referring to all of the comments – or even complete comments – posted. There was also a more important and genuine exchange of ideas, which I hope to get to later.)

The commentary continued the discussion within the frame of the current debate structure. That structure, in blog format, is to constantly one-up one another with a series of rat-a-tat postings. It’s natural – it’s been the debate structure for most of the last ten years. I even saw some “Gotchas!” and “Everybody Does It” in the commentary.

Happily, some comments added to my thesis. Thinkindependent (sorry Think, but I have to type and read acronyms all day long in my professional life. As a result, I cannot bear all caps and must type you out as a proper noun) adds this:

… you have to reframe the Democratic message. Make it more concise, more articulate, and package it in a way that the public will buy it. Then you have to get the right salesman, as Ronald Reagan was on the Republican side.

I hadn’t figured the right salesman in the mix. What I wanted was to divorce the Democratic Party from the dominating influence that one person – a president or a presidential candidate – can have on the party’s ideology. The way to accomplish this is to create a bold Democratic message that articulates our ideas independent of any one person. But we certainly will need a standard bearer.

As it is now, the American public already knows what the Republican candidate for 2008 will stand for. We’ll be waiting to hear from the Democrat until after the primaries.