A Time for Leadership

For some time now, I've been saying that the Democrats need to stop sitting around testing the direction of the wind and take a leadership role in changing the wind if it's in the wrong direction. I'm glad to see that Scott Shields at MyDD seems to agree:

Leadership is not about testing the waters of public opinion and jumping on the bandwagon. Leadership is about putting forward and making the case for new ideas that help shape public opinion. In both political parties, there is a serious lack of leadership at the federal level…

… Senator Russ Feingold has been leading. When the Republicans tried to pull their patented reverse-psychology jujitsu, the media bought into their spin, many of his Democratic colleagues flinched, and Feingold stood firm. Since then, the polling has shown that the nation has not yet decided where it stands on censure, and Feingold's continued to make his case. And the media has been backing away from the Republican assertion that the censure resolution is a net gain for them.

Take a look at the headline of the AP story Jonathan mentioned earlier -- "Feingold's Censure Call Gives Him Boost." I think this shows the real value of leadership. Censure may not have the support of the majority, but does that mean we shouldn't pursue it? Did the Civil Rights movement have the support of the majority? Should progressives therefore not have pushed a civil rights agenda? Of course not. As Feingold is quoted as saying in the article, Democrats basing their tactics on reaction to the opposition is simply a bad idea.

Feingold said his sole purpose was to hold Bush accountable, but he argued that it's also good politics. "These Democratic pundits are all scared of the Republican base getting energized, but they're willing to pay the price of not energizing the Democratic base," he said. "It's an overly defensive and meek approach to politics."

At the end of the day, Republicans are going to say whatever they're going to say, no matter what we do. Democrats would do well to follow Feingold's example by ignoring them and trying to shape conventional wisdom rather than respond to it. I think we're seeing some of that in Democrats refusing to go along with the anti-immigration zeitgeist. But even then, with half a million people marching in the streets of Los Angeles, it's hard to argue that yours is a pro-immigration voice in the wilderness.

Honestly, I'm still not sure what kind of impact this will have on 2008. Will it help Feingold with the base? Of course it will. But who knows if it will be enough to help him win the nomination. But that's not what's important here. Really, I hope the ultimate outcome is that Feingold's stance empowers other Democrats running in elections at all levels in 2006, 2007, 2008, and beyond. People are desperate for alternatives to modern Republicanism and it seems to me that if they were convinced that Democrats are ready to lead, we'd be looking at landslides across the board. Voters might not agree with every Democratic position and proposal, but people aren't looking for positions and proposals -- they're looking for leaders.