Leon Panetta remains one of the most respected members of the Democratic party. He’s a former Democratic representative, former director of the office of management and budget, and former White House chief of staff. former White House Chief of staff. Today he’s sometimes seen at the nonprofit Panetta Institute, which he founded and directs with and his wife Sylvia at at California State University, Monterey Bay.
In an op-ed piece in the New York Times he writes:
We govern our democracy either by leadership or by crisis. Last Tuesday, the American people sent a clear message that they are sick and tired of government by crisis. They elected Democrats to the House and Senate not to prolong gridlock, but to govern.
There are those who believe that the best political strategy for 2008 is for the Democrats to continue to confront President Bush and seal his fate as a failed president. The danger, however, is that if the Democrats become nothing more than a party of obstruction, it will be only a matter of time before they too will lose the trust of the American people. The lesson of this election is that the public will no longer tolerate incompetence and gridlock, whether it comes from the Republicans or the Democrats.
Twelve years ago, President Clinton suffered a similar defeat when Republicans captured both houses of Congress. As chief of staff to the president at the time, I was asked to comment on the implications of that midterm election for the president and the future of the nation. My response was that the real question was whether a party that had been a minority in Congress was now prepared to work with the president to govern the nation.
Today it is fair to ask the same question of the Democrats.
It’s worth taking an extensive look at this piece because Panetta is essentially reminding Democrats that the wisest and, in the long term, most politically productive strategic and tactical course if is to focus on solution-solving and coalition building. Both of those goals would entail keeping in mind that the nation DOES have a political center — something the White House and GOP apparently forgot in recent years. That can happen when you listen to too much Rush Limbaugh, who is frowing, holding his nose and reading talking points that you yourself put out.
(Readers who doubt that American politics has historically had a definite center or want to know more about it should read THIS BOOK
by John Avlon who worked for President Bill Clinton, was working for Rudy Giuliani when 911 happened and is again working for the former mayor. It is the BEST most cogent, readable and solid book written on America’s long history of independent and centrist voters and candidates — candidates who succeeded and candidates who flopped. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED)
Panetta recounts the turbulent history of 1994, when the GOP responded with The Contract On America, confronted Clinton and contributed to the shutdown of the federal government. The resulting backlash was not lost on the GOP, Panetta writes:
Badly damaged by the public outrage over such antics, Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich decided that Republicans had to work with the president if they were to survive. This led to a period of cooperation that produced, among other achievements, a balanced federal budget and welfare reform. The Republicans held their majority in 1996.
In the wake of this election, the Democrats and the president face the same choice: gridlock or cooperation?
If you’re thinking that Panetta is writing a touchy-feely op-ed piece that gingerly walks around the problem that centrist and independent voters have been complaining about for years, WRONG:
While both sides are speaking the words of reconciliation, nothing will really change until they can trust each other. After six years of partisan trench warfare, that will not be easy. It begins with a cease-fire on the rhetoric of cheap shots and ultimatums. Karl Rove and other political consultants need to take a long vacation. Both sides need to speak honestly with each other and be willing to compromise.
You can already see some on each side aren’t taking Panetta’s advice. Some talk radio shows on the right are already demonizing Democratic leaders; some talk radio shows on the left continue to have impeachment as the vital issue facing this country. Those who are less than a week after the elections just itching to get the country back into a polarized furor hate a word Panetta uses next. We’ll boldface it:
The legislative work can begin on areas where there is likely consensus: immigration reform, lobbying and ethics reform, and education with the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind.
Centrists and independent voters are into shifting the political style back a bit to the days when “consensus” wasn’t akin to some to a word that elicits a gasp during a viewing of Borat. And if you read the election results, many Americans feel the time has come for the political posturing on both sides to recede and be replaced by thoughtful discussions aimed at better policy making. MORE:
If that works, Congress and the administration can move on to negotiate tougher issues like establishing long-term budget discipline, expanding energy alternatives, fixing the prescription drug benefit and increasing the minimum wage.
And if THAT works, Panetta writes, then the Democrats and GWB can move onto examine Iraq and face what he calls a “brutal reality”:
We need a new strategy to stabilize Iraq so that our troops can begin to come home without leaving a disaster behind. The president took an important step by replacing Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld with Robert Gates. The Iraq Study Group led by James Baker and Lee Hamilton, of which I am a member, will soon make its recommendations, which we hope will provide the beginning of a unified strategy.
Democracy needs the trust of the people. But that can only occur if our elected leaders can trust one another. That is not only good politics, it just happens to be good for the country.
And that’s the key point of it: voters who were Republicans, Democrats and independents joined in a coalition to clip the GOP’s three-branch-rule wings because they felt the party had not always acted in a way that was good for the country.
Now it’s the Democrats’ turn on center stage. Can they give non-activist voters a different impression? Or will there be another political pendulum swing in 2008?
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, writes a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.