March 4, 2005 PERMALINK
Why The GOP Isn't Losing Badly Enough
(posted March 4 1 AM ET)
MyDD recently flagged a new strategy memo from James Carville and Stan Greenberg of Democracy Corps.
It concluded that even though the Republicans are losing the Social Security debate, they’re not yet paying a political price for it, the way Dems did after the ’94 health care debacle.
This should be no surprise.
As LiberalOasis has noted several times before, while Dem unity has been good on Social Security, the messaging has been scattered.
And as one MyDD commenter put it: “Dems have been successful so far in defending social security, what we have adequately failed to do is attack the GOP.”
To take it one step further, Dems haven’t used the issue to make the larger case why their view of the role of government is better for America than the GOP’s.
Democracy Corps appears to agree in part, at least on the point that Dems needs to stress principles:
The failure to cause more damage may also lie in the area of principles, more than ideas and plans...
...The Democrats should elevate the battle by stating the principles that divide Republicans and Democrats on this issue...
...After all, this is a battle about values and convictions. It should be joined in those terms.
But then they offer "poll-vetted" principles that -- while not awful – lack a needed edge.
They come across as if they’re dancing around the heart of the matter, because they are.
The heart of the matter is the role of our government. But the poll-vetted principles never even mention the word.
That’s because Democracy Corps is still running scared -- of being tagged as liberal, of being seen as supportive of a role for government.
Carville and Greenberg write, early in their memo:
The good news for the Democrats is that they are no longer struggling to banish the demons of the sixties.
Bill Clinton accomplished many important things.
Democrats are a plausible national party, not weighed down by grave doubts on liberalism, big spending, and taxes.
But the party is weighed down because Clinton left the party without consensus on vision and principles.
And he taught too many Dems that the way to win is to tack Right whenever possible, which is what eroded the party’s principles.
The irony is that Clinton claimed the mantle of fiscal responsibility by having the guts and common sense to raise taxes when it was necessary.
And even though that move arguably contributed to the loss of Congress in ’94, the economy the move helped create led to his re-election in ’96.
But the party has been too afraid to stress this, too afraid to make a case for responsive government, for fair and adequate taxation.
Too afraid to embrace its liberal underpinnings, and define it for today’s times, the way the GOP has for conservatism.
It is that fear which has hampered the Dem messaging, in Social Security and elsewhere.
It is that fear that leads Carville and Greenberg to think they can graft principles on the party through polling.
Until the party is willing to use big confrontations over issues like Social Security to exemplify the importance of government and shift the parameters of debate, we may win some more battles, but we won’t win the war.
March 3, 2005 PERMALINK
The Time For (Constructive) Infighting Is Now
(posted March 3 2 AM ET)
Last week, possible prez candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton signaled she could support permanent military bases in Iraq.
This week, possible prez candidatae Gov. Bill Richardson told the Moonie Times that Dems should embrace “sensible tax cuts”.
Is this the way it’s going to be through 2008?
Will the whole crop of potential candidates coming up with ways to sacrifice principle, tack Right, and become complicit in the conservative agenda?
It’s possible.
(For the record, “sensible tax cuts” are not inherently antithetical to liberalism, depending on the fiscal picture, economic landscape, and societal needs at the time. But there is nothing sensible about tax cuts when you’re faced with massive debt and losses in services.)
In the zero-sum game championed by myopic politicos, you want to move the Right as much as possible without alienating too much of the base.
When what you should be doing is laying out a compelling principled vision that would energize the base while also appealing to the more passive middle.
The grassroots has had some success in influencing the party as of late – most notably, pressuring congressional Dems to stay unified on Social Security, and selecting Howard Dean as party chair.
But we should be concerned, even at this very early stage, that candidates will view the base as an annoying obstacle to mollify, not a healthy source of energy and wisdom.
For example, are Hillary and Sen. John Kerry committed to pushing hard for the new Count Every Vote Act, or is it just to have a talking point for primary voters angry that they didn't fight for Ohio?
Is Sen. Evan Bayh rejecting the foreign policy vision of the neocons by voting against Condi Rice for Sec. of State, or is it just a cosmetic move to appease those he said wanted to “vent” instead of “govern.”
The challenge for us is to find a way to influence the discourse, so the perceptions regarding what it takes to win are not dictated by the myopic, slanting the entire field.
Of course, it would be easier to influence with the help of a name politician thought to be pondering a run – such as Sen. Russ Feingold or Al Gore.
But we can’t presume that anyone will run with the intention of offering a revitalized liberal vision.
We should not sit on our hands and wait for a savior.
And we should not rave when scraps are condescendingly tossed at the base.
We have to take it upon ourselves to engage the party, confront the accommodationist wing, and lay out our own compelling vision.
And if that vision gets traction, even some accommodationists will follow our lead.
Yes, this is what is derided as infighting. And infighting is generally debilitating as it distracts from fighting the other party.
But it can and should be done, in a constructive way.
Besides, the DLC has already thrown down, advising to party to reject the “MoveOn crowd” who are “elites, people who sit in their basements all the time and play on their computers”.
(You might have thought elites go to Hollywood parties and summer in the Hamptons, but no, they actually putz around in their basements. Who knew?)
So let’s throw. Let’s stack our vision against the DLC’s.
Most importantly, the time to do this is now, in the off-years, when any infighting will not preclude a closing of the ranks come election season.
If we don’t successfully make our case and lay down a foundation, then our next presidential nominee won’t have anything to stand on.
Without that, we can’t expect him or her to be able to sell any vision over a period of a few months in ’08.
Some knock John Kerry for a mushy campaign, but in several ways, he was simply a reflection of a mushy party at all levels, which was rudderless through much of Dubya’s first term, which flinched at the prospect of a riskier candidate in Dean.
We all must take some responsibility for that, and do what we can to avoid a repeat.
