Wanted: Democrats with Bite

At the onset of the Civil War, the South had negligible factory capacity to produce cannon, too little land under cultivation for crops (though lots of land devoted to cash crops), no navy to prevent a blockade of ports, a population about 1/3 that of the north, and no functioning central government. The North had all the advantages of numbers in people, factories, food and wealth. All the South had was, as Rhett Butler observed, cotton, slaves and arrogance.

That war should have been over in 4 months, not 4 years.

But as they were fond of saying in the South, "It's not the size of the dog in the fight; it's the size of the fight in the dog." 

The South had two things: 1. The capacity to reframe the argument.  2. Good leaders: leaders with daring, who were not afraid of a fight.

When it came to the argument, well, slavery was not a great policy. Only a small aristocracy actually owned slaves, and the South would need all of its men to fight; it would need to bring on board  the 19th century equivalent of Joe Sixpack. So, the fight would be about "states rights."  Everyone had to like the right of states to do what they wanted without some Big Government in distant Washington telling them what to do.

When we think about how the Republican party of today has managed to recruit to its ranks so many who are not in the top 1%, it has used the same technique: reframe the argument. This election is not about economic fairness, it's about Big Government. 

Aren't we all just appalled by Big Government?

We might like Medicare and Social Security and the internet and the cohesiveness it took to beat Hitler, but Big Government? Hell, that's something we can all agree to hate.

And as for leaders: Consider the Republican leader of the Senate, Mitch McConnell who, when given the unenviable task of making a case for continuing tax cuts for the billionaires comes up with the brilliant remark that to change the tax code now, in this precarious economy would be like playing Russian roulette with the economy.

Russian roulette, oh, that's bad.  You point the gun at your own head in that game.

And who do the Democrats have to respond to this?  Why, Casper Milquetoast himself, with that wispy little voice, that walking apology, Harry Reid, who says, oh, well, no, actually, we are not trying to hold a gun to anyone's head, we are just concerned about the current economic situation, so sorry to upset you.

It took Lincoln a few years to finally find some generals to match those of the opposition. And they were flawed men: Sherman was a depressive and Sheridan was ruthless and Grant was said to be a drunk. Lincoln said he'd like to find out just exactly what it was Grant drank, so he could supply it to his other generals. As Lincoln  summed it up, "He fights."

We need a Grant and Sherman and a Sheridan now, in the Democratic party, to turn the tide of the war. We are clearly losing to a "cause" which is no more worthy than that great Southern  Cause.  We have lost important battles: The election of 2010 lost the House of Representatives to the Tea Party Frank Guintas and Paul Ryans who want to destroy Social Security and Medicare. In the state house in Concord we have the same lunatic core of Republicans who want to sent us back to the 19th century, to an agrarian state which spurns the idea of community and cooperative effort.

I'm still looking for a dog with some sizable fight.