What do the Democrats stand for? Nobody really knows. Nobody has known for quite some time now.

The Democratic consultants -- the politocrats -- started to notice. A few weeks ago, the buzz was that the Democrats were huddling together to come up with their plan -- their own version of the Republicans' '90s Contract On America.

Aside from some new slogan, which was so compelling it was immediately forgotten, they've come up with bupkis so far. What do Democrats stand for? Aside from everything the Republicans stand for, only less so, it's almost impossible to say.

I hope they were watching The West Wing tonight. In what was really just a broadcast stunt, let's face it, the two main characters of the show this season -- Matt Santos, played by Jimmy Smits, and Arnold Vinick, played by Alan Alda -- held a "live" debate.

And (shock of all shocks) they talked about ideas.

Imagine political candidates who don't go for focus-group-honed talking points, or the cheap rhetorical gesture. You can't, can you?

The show was a bit unrealistic. One of the main problems was that in this fictitious world, America is not at war against Iraq, and an incompetent boob hasn't been President for the past 8 years. The reality on The West Wing is much different, with a smart and politically savvy Democrat in office.

So for the show tonight to resonate with the viewers, they couldn't really dwell too much on the Bartlett administration -- even though that's what, realistically, would have happened in real life. They didn't talk about what's been going wrong very much.

No, they focused on the future. And I suppose that's part of what made the show appealing.

After watching some of the Sunday talk shows this morning, where politicians, reporters and pundits talked about the people with a sort of contempt -- you know, those people who want things -- and the politicians, who are pretty out of step with the American public, as being the only people relevant in national affairs, I was really despairing over how isolated Washington is. We are ruled by an echo chamber that considers anything outside of the Beltway as being rather irrelevant.

And so it was so refreshing to hear politicians -- who are not the groomed and conditioned baby food the party machines spit out, or the neurotic insecure jerks who can strike a pose -- talk about the problems and challenges our country faces.

I think it's probably fair to say that Matt Santos came off better on this show. The show's been about Democrats, and the Republicans have come off through the years as demagogues, for the most part -- more Tom DeLay than John McCain. But Vinick wasn't bad, and made some strong points, too. The debate was a real debate -- if too short -- and not just more posing, with or without earpieces or tweaker indications or perpetual whining.

I hope the politicians are paying attention -- especially the Democrats.

The recent polls show that the Republicans are not trusted. But they also show that the people -- remember, those of us who don't matter 99% of the time, according to the Beltway experts -- do not see any strong leaders in the Democratic Party.

Will we see any strong candidates emerge from either party? Are we doomed to candidates who are spin-machine products? The Republicans have really gone wingnutty in the past year or two -- far beyond anything we've seen in a very very long long time -- but the Democrats are so diffuse, so unfocused, so diverse that they have no collective voice, no collective identity.

No spine.

The West Wing is a nice fantasy diversion. That's okay. I can get into a fantasy series now and then, and with Battlestar Galactica off until January, it's nice to get a fantasy fix from a network show.

But wouldn't it be nice if the politicians were honest and forthright and competent and smart? Wouldn't it be nice if we could choose between the capable rather than hold our noses and pick from the incompetent, the incoherent, the invisible?

I really really hope the politicians are paying attention. And get a clue. Because right now, it's like Congress represents an America that doesn't even exist. Right now, it's Congress and the President who are living in a fantasy.

Follow-up question to Matt Santos: If Medicare really does run by spending only 2% on administration, while the insurance companies spend 25% of their resources on paperwork -- and who knows how much on advertising? -- why is Medicare in such bad shape? And if it's an efficient government program that is just overextended, why is there so much interest in scrapping it?

About author

media girl also blogs at other places.