How to win the peace?

Let's say, just for argument, that it's 2008, and Democrats have reclaimed the Oval Office and both houses of Congress. It's a picture that warms the hearts of leftists everywhere, of course. But what do we do now, particularly with the Republicans that have just been sorely defeated?

It's an important question, and one that is being raised by Aziz Poonawalla at the apparently-not-quite-moribund Dean Nation. Aziz's take on the issue, culled from an impassioned front-page post in which he suggests the creation of a genuine cross-partisan political community:

The problem is that there are very few genuinely purple voices in politics today. Even Dean himself, whose candidacy was as purple as could be, was never able to sell that message to the red aisle - and in so doing let itself be co-opted by the determinedly blue. In other words, Dean never really succeeded in selling the concept of Purple to the Blues. The voice of the Deaniac movement was always the Blue/Progressive one, whereas the actual bulk was ordinary purple folks who just were unable to reclaim the movement from the further left in the eye of the public media. As a result, the large population of Democratic voters who were genuinely receptive to a purple message could not discern what purple there was to be had, and rejected Dean for a more purple-marketed candidate. ...

What a purple revolution needs is not to be hitched to a popular figure's wagon. The decentralization of party politics and the purple-ization of political discourse are two neccessary and complementary forces, both of which must operate in tandem. As long as we wait for our knight in shining armor to rescue us, we will fail, even if that knight is named Obama or Clinton.

Here's where things have to go. A return to general principles - an articulation of what our common ground is, in such a way that every American feels a sense of ownership and camraderie to the ideas being put forth. Maybe He is against privatization of Social Security, whereas She is for it; but both should in general be for the right of Americans to grow old with dignity after a lifetime of labor, without fear of financial and social armageddon, as so characterized the experience of aging in this nation before FDR's New Deal. How we get there is one thing, but we should at least agree on first principles. Let us seek those principles.

Shouldn't abortions be rare? Shouldn't entrepeneurs be encouraged to take risks? Shouldn't employees be judged on merit rather than skin color? Shouldn't consenting adults retain privacy over their affairs? Shouldn't sovereignity of the self remain free of external imposition? Shouldn't we have a right to the fruits of our own labors? Shouldn't we be free? Shoudn't all of mankind be free?

These are the questions that we should be asking of each other, across the red-blue divide. Such a dialouge is impossible however, when conducted under the purview of that dated framework. Instead, we have to conduct the debate as neighbors, as friends, as co-workers, as Americans. Leave your party ID at the door and take this colorblind map of the states with you - we need policy, not ideology, to be the driving force of our discussions, for our own benefit and that of future generations. ...

What is needed is a means of facilitating a community without the partisanship - which requires immense self-control. How do you talk about politics without getting sucked into the gotcha game? I think it is possible. What is needed is a scoop-style site, with an active diarist community and a front-page crew who are committed to maintaining a dialouge at a higher level. Probably, anyone with a membership in a political party would not be suitable for front-page material, as they are compromised by it. It would have to be focused on facts and references, not personalities and agendas. It would need a common set of definitions for terms such as "liberal" and "freedom" and the like, and the comunity would have to be vigilant in self-policing againt the kind of demonization of the Other that occurs so routinely elsewhere.

If such a site could be established, it would mesh well with the emergent grassroots revolution that Dean is fostering. But it would neccessarily be independent as well - and as such would have to be open to participation from politicians on both sides of the aisle. Nay, not just open, but actively recruit. How many regulars at either Dkos or Red State can name a member of the opposing party whom they can genuinely and sincerely praise?

Republicanism is dangerous, and destroying the fabric of our national unity from the edges inward. So too a threat would be Democratism; though right now the emergence of the latter is less a concern. We need a short-circuit of both - to create something new. The future of the political discourse in our nation may well depend on it.

My response in the comments, questioning the need for such a community and arguing that Aziz is underestimating the evils of modern Republicanism:

I do believe that it is necessary to reach across the divide, but not in the spirit of "Can't we just all get along." The problem with America right now is that there is one group of people with whom we can't get along: the Radical Right. As the years roll on and the James Dobsons and Tom DeLay's of the world continue their dominance over American politics, it is increasingly difficult to remember that ten short years ago Bob Dole and John McCain were considered staunch conservatives and the eminently respectable Barry Goldwater was a wingnut.

Right now, the Republican Party -- the real, old-school Republicans, the loyal opposition we used to know -- has a great deal of soul-searching to do. They must choose to expel the Radical Right from their ranks and return to the respectable conservatism that defined their party from Taft to Goldwater. It is a time not unlike the 1870's, when the Moderate Republicans expelled the Radicals from their midst.

As Democrats, we can help the true Republicans first by winning -- by gaining enough political power that we can actually accomplish something. Then, and ONLY then, we must show that we know the difference between Lincoln Chafee and Bill Frist, between George Voinovich and Rick Santorum. The former must be treated with magnanimity, must be encouraged with dialogue and support to expel the enemy from their midst. The latter must be treated with contempt and hounded out of public life.

So there's my plan to win both the war and the peace: first get elected by any means necessary. Then offer sanctuary to the true Republicans and no quarter to the false ones. But ONLY after we've gotten elected.

What do you think of all this? I'm anxious to hear your thoughts.