Needing an Agenda?!

Today, the Washington Post seemed obsessed with helping Democrats find their voice.

This piece sets out the manifold difficulties the party has had in finding a coherent message with which all its segments can agree. And in this piece, E.J. Dionne summarizes the Dems' problems as follows:

Thus the shortcoming of Democratic leaders is not that they don't have a program but that they have not yet convinced opinion makers that fighting bad policies is actually constructive -- and that, between presidential elections, keeping matters from getting worse is sometimes the most positive alternative on offer.

Of course, in a sense, Dionne is more right than he knows. The Dems' shortcoming, indeed, isn't that they don't have a program. They do: Withdraw from Iraq, raise taxes, impeach President Bush. The problem is that it's not a message that will sell. So the real question is: How important is it that the Democrats have a series of talking points that promises an agenda palatable to mainstream America?

In some instances, it probably wouldn't be important at all. If the Democrats seemed even marginally trustworthy -- rather than coming across as a party dominated by Bush-haters -- a positive program might not be so important. Or if they had a history of being responsible on national security even when that meant cooperating with the President -- rather than the only example of "hawkishness" they can point to being the ports deal, one that conveniently allowed them to fight the President. Or perhaps even all that would be overlooked if it weren't wartime. But if Congress intends to become an engaged second-guesser of every decision the President makes, it's important that they speak with a unified voice about what they would do.

So far, no one's hearing one.