Matt Bai's article in The New York Times Magazine, which I cited in my Sunday post, has generated a slew of commentary in Democratic circles. That's a good thing, but the tone of some of the commentary bothers me a bit. Markos Zuniga of The Daily Kos, for example, questions whether there will or should be much of a role for the Democratic party as an institution in the future, given developments like the Phoenix Group, the 527s, online fundraising, etc.

I guess I don't really see the point of discarding the party and relying entirely on the new institutions that are starting to evolve. There's no logical reason why the new and old institutions can't me made to work together and evolve in tandem (as, in fact, happened within the Republican party--see Michael Tomasky's excellent column on the Bai piece where he makes this point and others very crisply). This will take some time, but then again evolving and perfecting the new institutions that are starting to emerge will take some time as well.

In other words, a little patience may be in order--though it appears SEIU head Andrew Stern, for one, is running out of his. David Broder quotes Stern as saying "if John Kerry becomes president it hurts" chances of reforming the party and that he doesn't "know if it [efforts to create new institutions] would survive with a Democratic president".

Whoa there, Andy! That's not saying if we've got lemons, let's make lemonade, that's asking for wall-to-wall lemons! People like to win and, if Kerry does, a feeling of triumph will suffuse both the party and the emerging institutions Stern supports, giving them both a burst of energy. Losing, on the other hand, will deflate both and will be an obstacle, not an aid, to moving forward.

So, to review:

1. The party is not dying and we don't need to kill it.
2. Winning is good.

Repeat these points to yourself several times and you will find yourself feeling calmer....more peaceful....and refreshed.