The Democratic party doesn't need an ideology. What is wrong with the Republicans is their belief in "argument", their adherence to ideology over practical solutions to real problems. The Democrats do not need to follow suit and become another group of ideologues arguing endlessly about "principles". This country needs practical, solution driven ideas. The party is a big tent and people are not going to agree about much except we need to get the reactionaries out of power. Don't get bogged down squabbling over "ideology".

Sent by George from Oregon | 2:14 PM ET | 08-20-2007

When is focus going to shift to the longterm wellfare of the country and its citizens, instead of the elected officials re-elections, and political maneuvers. I realize one could argue that in order to do this, politicians have to get elected first, but it just seems that if they acted for the people first and foremost, winning elections would not be as difficult to do.

Sent by Kassie | 2:15 PM ET | 08-20-2007

The argument Democrats must make to the American electorate is a simple one. We remain the party of F.D.R. We stand for a fair days pay for a day's work. We must find a method to provide medical care all Americans and we must have a foreign policy which weighs American's safety, security and prosperity with the need and desires of our sister nations. We must not continue to refashion ourselves as Democratic version of the Republican party.

Sent by ANthony Bush | 2:21 PM ET | 08-20-2007

What an important topic; I have been trying to focus people on the topic of principles for several years, and trying to develop strong arguments for mine to be convincing.

But I have been frustrated by those that focus on stolen elections or just winning. Very frustrating.

What I think is telling is the nostalgia for Barry Goldwater, because he is seen as a man of principle. (I not that as a man of libertarian bent, he lobbied for medical marijauna laws in his last years - which I see as inconsistent - why are there any drug laws....)

When I was coming of age and when I was in college, principles were the topic of discussion. With Goldwater, Ayn Rand, WFBjr (Buckley), Friedman, Galbraith, JFK (ask not...), MLK, ....

Perhaps it is not surprising that I think of "conservatives" more than "liberals" in the 50s, 60s, and 70s on principles, for the rise of the Republican party.

Are there people who are focused on principles anywhere in society like in the 50s, 60s, and 70s? On college campuses?

Or is "principle" something too abstract, and only specific laws that are based on conflicting principles the only possible political strategy to win?

Sent by michael pettengill | 2:21 PM ET | 08-20-2007

Re Democrats and change, there will be no real change from either party until we embrace true public funding of elections, instant run-off voting and proportional representation.

Sent by Peter Javsicas | 2:36 PM ET | 08-20-2007

I think the main problem with the Democrats is the basic concept that government can and should be the solution to people's problems. Several people want "Universal Health" but they would rather spend $500 on a car payment or credit cards rather than buy medical insurance for $200. Democrats continue to think they can offer to "take care" of people rather than preaching personal responsibility.

Sent by Alex | 2:39 PM ET | 08-20-2007

As a stem cell research advocate, I am always amazed at the depth of support for the issue. The members of both parties are solidly behind the research. For instance, Proposition 71 won every demographic, encluding a slender majority among evangelical Christians. I believe this is the issue that will creat a lasting majority for that party wise enough to embrace it-- for the simple reason that an estimated one hundred million Americans suffer disease and disability considered incurable by traditional medicine. To block the research is to block cure-- and those millions of folks all have families. In short, stem cell research is an issue wise politicians will not ignore.

Sent by Don C. Reed | 2:39 PM ET | 08-20-2007

Talk of the Democrats' lack of a focus makes me laugh. The Democrats' mission is coalescing into a mission to save the middle class and preserve the American way of life. What is the Republicans' mission? Fiscal restraint? Not so much. Scrupulous defense of the constitution? Respect for the law? Certainly not. A conservative and prudent international policy? Sadly, no. Republicans' mission is to win elections in service to their corporate masters. They win elections by fomenting fear and hatred. Democrats lose elections by following the dreadful advice of strategists to abandon their integrity to play both sides of the fence. We're very lucky to have 'those horrible bloggers' to keep the professional politicians honest.

Sent by Mike | 2:42 PM ET | 08-20-2007

We should outlaw snitching. Look at all the problems those "whistle blowers" have caused!
Pointing out that someone is picking your pocket at any level of society is gonna make you a target. It doesn't matter if we're talking about street punks or our government leaders. If you are going to being a member of any group, you must keep your mouth shut!

Goodness gracious, haven't Bush and Cheney made that point perfectly by their example? Haven't we learned that all of society is obligated to protect their group. How about we add the idea of classified information or apply the concept executive privilege to the bottom end of our community.

Sent by jer | 2:57 PM ET | 08-20-2007

I'm looking forward to the day when a politicians argument isn't what I will do different, or look what they are doing, but this is what I will do! It seems like democrats, and republicans too, first bring up what the opposing party did and how they would do it better. I agree with Cassie, when will politicians start looking out for us, not just worrying about what they can do now to get re-elected. I know most probably won't agree with me on this, but I admire George Bush for doing what he thinks is right, even though it is widely unpopular. If all politicians would do what they believed was right, and not what will get them the most votes, this country would be alot better off.

Sent by Ross | 3:51 PM ET | 08-20-2007

I think the major issue facing us all is very obvious for those who contemplate it without fooling themselves. Neither party really addresses this issue, which is sustainability. Our population is 6 billion plus and will be by some accounts 9 billion by mid-century. Our climate, on which our oceans, forests, agriculture, and coastlines depend is starting to change dramatically. Fossil fuels on which we depend for 86% of our energy (Oil, gas, and Coal) will all peak and begin to deplete before mid-century. Real shortages in the availability of fresh water are increasing in number.

The mantra of America and most Economic Theory is Globalism and (relatively) unfettered growth. For how long can human consumption grow on a planet with finite resources?

The Democratic party needs to stand for the only future that is possible, one that acknowledges that our economics must align themselves with what the planets ecosystems can replenish. Currently we are withdrawing that bank account with no regaurd to future generations.

If this message is couched in terms of our overall long term prosperity people will understand this. By contrast, The Republicans, the party of Oil, Gas, Military Intervention, and the Second Coming have no true plan for the future and our children.

Sent by Bill | 4:19 PM ET | 08-20-2007

The Democrats (and the Republicans for that matter) have drunk too deeply from the well of "unfettered individualism" to unite behind any common vision or have a discussion of first principles. Unfortunately for our country, common assumptions about what we should aspire to, and what comprises a "good life" have come under attack with most people assuming that the "common good" is a naive or dangerous concept. Since the deaths of Robert Kennedy and MLK, cynicism over public ideals has had a wide reception among intellectuals and the general public. I don't know if modern American political parties even have the moral or intellectual framework to have a discussion of the "public good." We need a charismatic leader who can change the conversation e.g. Barak Obama.

Sent by Tim | 4:56 PM ET | 08-20-2007

I'm a moderate Republican who has voted for many Democrats in the past, but probably will not vote for Democrats in the foreseeable future. Although I otherwise like and respect many people who are Democrats, whenever politics comes up, I feel a great wave of hatred approaching me when I respectfully take a different opinion. That kind of attitude, my friends, will only lose the Democrat party more votes. The more exclusionary and emotionally you speak, the more votes you lose. Voters like me respond to rational discussions that address all sides of the big picture problems that we face, and logical solutions that preserve our liberty and national goals.

Sent by Cindy | 6:41 PM ET | 08-20-2007

Emphatic agreement that the Dems need an argument. Citizens are ready to respond. Digital infrastructure is in place to super-charge and carry the message of social and political change.

Most important from today's show is Bai's point that unity, staying 'on message' and modeling campaign strategies after winning conservatives comes at the cost of discussing, debating and challenging orthodoxy.

Herein lies the greatest opportunity for the Dems. They must go beyond making a progressive argument and actually do something boldly progressive.

What if the Dems right now -- during this $1 Billion Presidential election (the priciest in history) -- voluntarily
slashed all paid media which voters neither trust nor learn from? What a way to win back voter trust and optimism? It's a daring act that says 'we are going to do things differently. And in your best interest.' It's a game-changer for the election process forever, for the better.

As a caller on today's show (and a "stupid blogger"! :-) ), I cooked up this 7 Point U.S. Presidential Election Campaign Reform Dare for Dems you can find in its entirety here:

http://www.smallplanetpartners.com/the-1-billion-election-reform-dare-for-dems-cancel-your-paid-media

Sent by Willow Lundgren, KCMO | 7:05 PM ET | 08-20-2007

We republicans are in disarray because we have alot of Republicans in name only's (RINO's)
Everytime we turned around McCain and the gang of 13 were blocking us getting anything done. President Bush dared to touch the 3rd rail of Social Security.I wish I could have all the money the government has taken from me for medicare and taxes since I started my working life in 1981 in the market. I can't believe that anyone and I mean anyone want the government to run our healtcare system. Name me one program the government that runs well or efficently?? Bush even is a RINO in some respects. Look at the prescription drug program they started out saying it would cost what 150 billion and wound upcosting over 300 billion.
True Republicans want:
1) as much government out of you life as possible.
2) for everyone to have the opportunity to be as happy and as wealthy as you can possibly be.
3) A strong military to defend us against whoever threatens us.
Look at Mississippi a Republican state, when Katrina happened did you hear any whining and complaing from the people in Mississippi about what the government hasn't done for them. No, they pulled themselves up by the bootstraps started cleaning up and moved on.
The Democrat party is all about victims. No victims no need for democrat leaders.

Sent by Ronnie | 8:47 PM ET | 08-20-2007

I find the comment by Ross interesting. I have no idea why Bush took the US to war in Iraq. Bush first claimed he wouldn't involve the US in nation building when running for office. Then he's going to bring those responsible for 911 to justice. Then, in contradiction to both of those promised actions, we are in Iraq and Bush is determined to pursue what is certainly contrary to what he said he would do.

Where is the "no nation building" promised?

Where is the justice for 911?

More important, what is the principle?

Staying out of the business of other nations about which we know nothing about??? Clearly not that!

Staying the course, sticking with a task until accomplished??? Not that either.

On principles as ill defined as:
- free market capitalism
- smaller government
- fiscal responsibility
the Bush administration has both embraced and rejected those principles, smaller government when it comes to some programs, and bigger government for others. Oddly, smaller government for the military, and bigger government for entitlements. Free markets for imported goods, but not for imported labor, or at least free markets for imports except when votes are involved, then it is against the very clear free trade rules that Bush advocated.

Which brings up the issue of strict interpretation of the US Constitution which has been anything but clearly interpreted by the Bush administration, most often Bush has argued for a judicial rewriting of the US Constitution.

I wish I could figure out Bush's principles so I could challenge his principles, or the laws and actions he has called for that are contrary to those principles.

Sent by michael pettengill | 9:51 PM ET | 08-20-2007

The Democratic Party must present their vision of the future. This doesn't mean it should become the "step inline" homogeny the Republican Party now is. I would very much like to see Democratic politicians and candidates nationwide saying, "We can!" We can rebuild roads, we can reinvest in infrastructure, we can develop mass transit systems and highspeed rail corridors that utilize cleaner sources of energy and we can do it communities that want to support it but don't have the financial means to get it started. We can invest in America's future by creating high paying, sustainable jobs for all, not just the "highly skilled" laborer, but also for those who aren't equiped to become electrical engineers, doctors, lawyers and college graduates. We can stop saying, "We can't do that. It would cost too much or destroy our economy." We need visionaries who believe that the conservatives have not won this debate and that government can and should still do things to improve the lives of every American.

Sent by Kristopher Jenkins | 3:05 AM ET | 08-21-2007

i am trying to locate the historian who telephoned in from erie, pa (i think! i was navigating traffic) and was writing about the democrats in the 1970s. his was a great comment! i am working on the republicans in the 1970s, and i would very much like to get in touch with him.

Sent by laura kalman | 4:10 AM ET | 08-21-2007

Thank you Bill & Tim! People here and around the world are depairing of the possiblity of a sustainable future for their grandchildren. If the Democratic leadership offered a vision of that future and practical ways of getting there, it would fire the imagination and bring hope & passion back to the political discussion. My favorite ticket is GORE/OBAMA!

Sent by Jere | 11:11 AM ET | 08-21-2007

A comment to Kristopher,
Kris (if I may call you that) You have high expectations and the democrats....well, don't. Look at what they have done since the 2006 takeover. Named a few post offices and raised the minimum wage. Which I don't know who even pays less than $8.00 an hour. My local conveience store is even paying $8.00 an hour. They want the whitehouse so bad they will not take on any big issues til they are in power. What did Bill Clinton take on. He gave us NAFTA and Welfare reform which Newt Gingrich and the republicans wrote for him. Secondly the ideas they will have for America will be ideas most of America will not want and they will still not get anything done, because they will be too controversial just like Bush tried to do and they will just leave them alone. And you don't stay in office by pushing controversy. Look at Bush and Social Security and Medicare. (crickets) (crickets) (crickets)
So democrats may win in 2008. But chances are because they have no vision and a make it up as they go along philosophy 1 term is all they will get.

Sent by ronnie | 2:12 PM ET | 08-21-2007