Democratic strategist Donnie Fowler, who once had the audacity to run a much better race for his candidate than I did for mine in a primary here in SC, has a smart piece over at TNR today on the Democratic party's national security difficulties. (Sorry, subscription only.)

So what's the problem with the party of the left when it comes to national security? Despite Karl Rove's successful postelection spin that the 2004 election was about values, the truth is that reassurance and security moved the voters that made the difference. Particularly among married and college-educated women, the electorate believed that the Republicans would better protect them and their families than multi-medal, thrice-wounded John Kerry. So, while the Democrats are now fighting among themselves over whether we have values, we have done nothing to address the real thematic reason for Kerry's loss.

Democrats have conceded so much territory to the Republicans on security that we have left little room to make the case for ourselves. Our (in)actions suggest that even we have bought the line that you cannot be patriotic and be a Democrat. Since when does patriotism belong to the Republicans? Since when does the flag belong to the right wing?

Democrats are not connecting with voters, despite clear policies that favor the military, its veterans, and its families. We love issues so much that we forget to put them in a context that voters understand and, more significantly, that they feel.

The Democratic Party can do better in communicating to the American people our commitment to keeping the United States strong and safe. That means talking about security as a core principle of our party, not another policy proposal. Security for American voters means the safety of their families before it means the soundness of our borders. It means the peace of mind that comes with strong, decisive leadership before it means rewarding a candidate for the decorations of distinguished military service.

That's absolutely right. We Democrats have an unfortunate tendency to talk about national defense the same way we discuss, say, funding formulas for early childhood development programs, and the American people don't like it. Worse, they don't trust it. And until we can find a way to communicate on national security matters more effectively, we're going to keep having the kinds of problems we ran into this year, when a stupefyingly unsuccessful Republican president managed to win a narrow victory by convincing a bare majority of the electorate that they just couldn't risk turning the country over to our guy in perilous times.

UPDATE: Via Charles Kuffner, here's Jerome Armstrong's take on Fowler's Net-savvy campaign to become the next chairman of the DNC.