Loyal Opposition

What for, this war?

The left accused, 'War for oil!'

The Administration countered at first with 'We're hunting WMD's!" which (after no WMD's were found) morphed into 'War for Democracy in the Middle-East!'

But how much of this shameful enterprise is really a war for oil? How do the architects see this war, in their private chambers, when they're not spinning? There was a hint in a David Brooks column last week (Times Select).

He asked us to think about what the world could look like 50 years from now, with Islamic radicals either controlling the world’s oil supply or not. “I firmly believe that some day American presidents will be looking back at this period in time, saying, ‘Thank goodness they saw the vision,’ ” he said.

This was a private coffee klatch between Bush and some of his pet columnists. Fellow-travellers, ostensibly.

It hasn't been noted anywhere how succinctly Bush put the issue of oil into the context of the Iraq war in this quote. Here you have it: the war is not for oil access next week or next year, but 75 years from now.

Bush thinks that is more important to our security than energy conservation, peace, education, health care, technology, you name it. He's willing to destroy our military for this goal. Note that even the professional oil associations put peak oil 30 years from now. If we haven't gone whole hog for conservation and alternative energy by then, our economy is toast.

Earth To The Democratic Party

Facts don't speak for themselves.

An ill economy does not mean the voters know what you stand for. A war going badly does not mean the voters know what you stand for. A broken health insurance system does not mean the voters know what you stand for.

Republicans are all spin, all the time. Democrats are one pallid slogan a week ("We can do better"???) and a wan hope that things will get so bad that voters will vote for change, even if they don't know what that change is.

Democrats need to convey insight. A slogan based on an insight the voters recognize as true has the power to shift elections, inspire loyalty, and drive change.

Democrats also need to be on the attack, all the time. Relying on the facts, in and of themselves, to make your case means that you can't attack. Without constantly attacking, you can't drive the debate. That means your opponent gets to define you. Democrats get slimed into the loser column all the time.

A slogan should

1. Convey an insight that voters recognize as true.
2. Be on the attack

...at the same time. That's important! Don't do one or the other, but both. The slogan isn't ready until both are accomplished, elegantly and ferociously.

Here is a sample, not the most aggressive, but a good basic.

Substance Not Spin.

Note this characterizes anything your opponent says as a rejoiner as spin: he is put on the defensive, where you want him to be. You have declared yourself as purveyor of substance. Self-definition is powerful! Use it often, use it aggressively, use it with clarity of purpose. This is a good baseline slogan because you have prepped the discourse to receive your proposals and ideas as 'substance'. You have whetted the appetite, for there will be more to come.