Liberal Copycats

David Brooks has a great column in the New York Times which really sums up what's going on in liberal circles nowadays - the never ending effort to copy conservative successes:

We're living in the age of the liberal copycat. Al Franken tries to create a liberal version of Rush. Al Gore announced his TV network yesterday. Many Democrats have tried to create a liberal Heritage Foundation.

The theory is that liberals must create their own version of the conservative pyramid. Conservatives have formed their foundations, think tanks and media outlets into a ruthlessly efficient message machine. Liberals, on the other hand, have been losing because they are too fractious, too nuanced and, well, too freethinking.

Much as I admire my friends on the left for ingeniously explaining their recent defeats without really considering the possibility that maybe the substance of their ideas is the problem, I have to say that this explanation for conservative success and liberal failure is at odds with reality.

Conservatives have not triumphed because they have built a disciplined and efficient message machine. Conservatives have thrived because they are split into feuding factions that squabble incessantly. As these factions have multiplied, more people have come to call themselves conservatives because they've found one faction to agree with.

I just reported on the liberal answer to Drudge (see post below). Despite their best efforts, liberals just can't pull this stuff off. Why? Because they lack basic core beliefs which is what drives conservatives to do what they do. When you believe in nothing, as do most liberals, how do you articulate that in a way that's attractive to others? You can't. Instead you spend all your time trying to convince people that conservative policies are dangerous or mean or otherwise wrong, but then cannot bring forth policies of your own that have any merit. Liberals have become empty suits, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.