When Bill Clinton was president, I'm not sure he had any bigger supporter than me. But many of those who worked with him in the White House got into a mindset that can easily lead Democrats astray in our present circumstances. Clinton's critics often knock him for his reliance on tactical positioning, on tacking back and forth against the wind, on finding the small rhetorical or policy distinctions, the sweet spots that could upend his opponents.

But when you hold the White House those approaches really can work -- because you have three levers of power, the executive branch, the bully pulpit and the veto pen. That power gives you control over the terms and pace of the debate. And those let you bring clever tactics and fancy footwork into play.

But the Democrats don't have any of that today. They're completely excluded from power in Washington. The only effective power they have is the ability to deny the president the cover of bipartisanship in enacting his agenda when his agenda conflicts with their fundamental principles.

[...]

This isn't 1995 or 1996 when Clinton could dance around Newt Gingrich or hoodwink him with rhetoric and policy jujitsu. To the extent this gets down to a discussion of the nitty-gritty, Bush will just roll right over the Democrats.

And in a sense, why shouldn't he? One doesn't have to see this as a matter of President Bush's excessive partisanship or divisive governing style. True negotiations are seldom possible when there is a fundamental disparity in power between the two sides negotiating, as there is today between President Bush and his Democratic opposition.

When I think about Clintonite tactics and their one-time practitioners who are still in the game, I'm often reminded of a game of 'King of the Hill'. There are tactics that work great when you're at the top of the hill that aren't worth a damn when you're at the bottom. And there's nothing sadder than seeing someone at the bottom of the hill using top of the hill tactics. Actually, there is something sadder: when that person is you.

In a sense, Clinton used the powers of the presidency to create space for what is simply 'politics' -- the organized tussle of debating and changing minds. But most of President Bush's major legislation has gone through without 'politics' in this sense ever even happening. In almost every case, President Bush had his bill, he had compliant majorities in each chamber, and he just passed it. So long as there was not overwhelming and spirited public opposition it just went through. 'Politics', in the sense I've described it, seldom even got off the ground since it didn't particularly matter which way the public debate went.

No one is saying that Democrats should meet the president with effrontery. That would be counterproductive. Nor should the Democrats be unwilling to work together if President Bush supports legislation that doesn't go against Democrats' fundamental principles. But President Bush has made explicitly clear in this case that his proposal will go against those principles and he's made clear over the last four years that he has little interest in true legislative give-and-take.

Given those facts and given that the Democrats hold neither the White House nor either chamber of Congress, the only power the Democrats have is their power to state the facts clearly and withhold the legitimacy they alone can impart through providing bipartisan cover. This isn't rude or political. If Democrats believe private accounts are wrong they should say so and vote so. No voter expects politicians to vote for bills they believe are flatly wrong.

[...]

Should the Democrats have an alternative beyond just saying 'no'. Yes, they should. And they have a very good one. But it is very much the secondary part of the strategy. And their alternative can only be comprehensible and effective if the primary part is made sufficiently clear: that Democrats don't believe Social Security is in crisis and that whatever long-term funding challenges it faces do not require a fundamental revision of the structure of the program, let alone phasing it out as President Bush wants to do.

This is what opposition parties do. State their contrary vision where they have one, vote their principles on matters of fundamental political difference, and build a clear contrast on key issues which they can take to the voters in the next election. All the more so when the facts and the people's values are on their side. That's democracy. [Boldface emphasis added -- Ed]

Part of the problem, I think, is that Congressional Democrats still have not allowed themselves to believe that they really are the opposition party, and therefore need to conduct their business in a very different way from that of a party in power. Not that I think they should totally reconcile themselves to this change of status and settle in for the long haul as second fiddles, but it does seems as if a different kind of leadership is required, and a different standard of behavior from the rank-and-file back benchers as well. (A stricter discipline, primarily.)