Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« So What Do We Think of This? | Suburban Archipelago »

Friday, November 10, 2006

Re: Conservative? No and Yes a little.

posted by on November 10 at 13:30 PM

Gotcha, Josh. Today you’re for “conservative Democrats” blurring the distinction between themselves and moderate Republicans, and for Dems hyping their “down-home values,” if that’s what it takes to win the Senate.

But back in May, in a post that stuck in my mind because of this line…

Well, Democrats, I still agree w/ myself!

…you had some different advice for Democrats. You were encouraging them to strongly differentiate themselves from Republicans by coming up with a “Contract With America”-style promise for what they’d do if voters gave them control of Congress. You wanted clear, programmatic alternatives to the conservative agenda and a Democratic message that wasn’t simply, “Vote for us, we’re not the Republicans.”

It’s not so much that the Democrats need to have a 5-second message, but as the AP article points out, Democrats need to give voters a popular alternative. Democrats should be nervous that they’re six months out and they still don’t have a message beyond “Culture of Corruption” (um, hello Rep. Jefferson, D-LA)… And again, that message is about the Republicans.

A lot of people were saying this back then. The argument was that standing back and giving the Republicans enough rope to hang themselves with wouldn’t work, that Democrats needed to nationalize the election by articulating a unified set of Democratic values and promising a few specific changes that every Democrat in the country could run on.

Because of arguments like this the Democrats did come up with a “Contract With America”-like promise, something they called “Six in 06.” If you’ve never heard of it, you’re not alone. The Democrats did little to promote it, and they didn’t force every candidate everywhere to run on its agenda.

Instead, Democrats did exactly what many people were advising them not to do. They gave the Republcans enough rope to hang themselves with; they remained vague about their programmatic alternative on the biggest issue of the day, Iraq; they let candidates tailor themselves to their districts rather than imposing a one-size-fits all ideological framework; and they essentially said to a public increasingly unhappy with the direction of the country: “Vote for us, we’re not the Republicans.”

They nationalized the election, but by talking about their opponents more than they talked about themselves, thus making it a referendum on the party in power.

And, well, it worked. It worked because the relative programmatic silence from Democrats left the Republicans with nothing to attack except the same old straw men and boogeymen (supposedly unpatriotic Democrats, scary taxes, Michael J. Fox, and gays).

The country had seen this before, and basically responded with a yawn. Additionally, every time the Republicans attacked Democrats, Democrats threw the Republicans’ manifest failures back in their faces, forcing them to defend a record that was, essentially, indefensible. (And, that catchy phrase “Culture of Corruption” clearly had some resonance; exit polls showed voters citing “Corruption in Washington” as one of their prime concerns.)

I do think a party as established as the Democrats should be able to define itself at a national level in terms broader than simply “change.” But in this election, that probably would have backfired and anyway was unnecessary to the primary Democratic goal: Taking back the House and Senate.

RSS icon Comments

1

Now if only they can come up with some ideas.

Posted by SEAN NELSON, EMERITUS | November 10, 2006 2:08 PM
2

Well, they do have ideas and an agenda (see 6 for 06 link in post). And they have two years to show progress in those areas. I thought about what Eli is saying here some time back. Republicans didn't get a chance to shout down the Dems agenda this time and instead spent most of time cleaning the cum stains off the sheets. It was fun to watch.

But two years from now, we may have to have more prominant and publicized ideas on the table and we better be able to use them strategically on the offense.

Posted by Jimmy | November 10, 2006 2:24 PM
3

I have a feeling we just got lucky in a perverse way with all the scandals. I really hope the dems manage to make progress and take credit for it, otherwise I think in two years the neocons will just put scary terrorist plots on the news again and come back to power, at least in the senate and white house, and remain there until a generation too young to remember 9/11 reaches voting age.

Posted by Noink | November 10, 2006 3:46 PM
4

I agree Eli. The Republicans gave us so much so much rope to work with this time that it was pretty easy and effective to just let the rope play out and watch them hang.

Campaign time is the time for gauze. As the R's did so effectively in 1994, 2000, 2002, 2004: attack with vengence, propose with gauzy glow.

When so much corruption and incompetence is on display it really is enough to say "this blows, we can do better".

Posted by Barak (not Obama) | November 10, 2006 3:51 PM
5

The problem with this kind of meta analysis is that it ignores the real reasons for success or failure, which are always local and specific. It's the same kind of thinking that led people to say Karl Rove was a genius then, and to say he's not now. Karl Rove WAS a genius, in 2000 and 2004 (Nixon and Reagan's "Southern strategy, plus cresting evangelicalism), but his strategy failed in 2006 because it didn't change, and it didn't take into account the specifics of 2006.

Democrats are in danger of making the same mistake if they think it's possible to come up with grand overarching theories about what people want. What people in 2006 want is to punish the people who led us into Iraq, and who failed to lead us out of Katrina, and who were so visibly corrupt. But those conditions aren't going to be there in 2008 or 2012. The magic theories will be, but they will come up empty unless Democrats can find very specific and local things to succeed at.

"Local" doesn't just mean "about Seattle". Global issues like the Iraq war are local in the sense that local attitudes to them are what matter here.

If the Democrats "have some ideas" they had sure as hell better figure out a way to make them HAPPEN, or they're fucked. No one, but NO ONE, wants candidates who "support" a raise in the minimum wage, for instance; they want them to formulate a plan to raise it, and then execute it.

The danger is that with Bush still in office there is no possibility for action from Congress. What few bills they can muster votes for will be easily vetoed, or worse yet, wiped away with a signing statement. I don't know if this has sunk in yet, but there is going to be NO ACTION on the war, on minimum wage, on tax cuts, on stem cell research, or whatever else is on the laundry list with this blocked Congress. NADA. ZERO LEGISLATION. The only thing they can possibly do is block court nominees and Cabinet-level appointments.

So the question is, can they do that -- get stymied on legislation, and block Bush appointees -- and make it look like an accomplishment? That's the way forward. Take it to Bush directly, and make him say no to them, and make him defend it, and shred his defense. They must continue to make Bush be the issue, and make kook religious positions be the issue, and make administrative competence and honesty be the issue.

Because when Bush leaves in two years, there will be a whole political structure he leaves behind that will still be here, and if the Dems can make the Republicans continue to run against their own President, they'll be in good shape. If not, they're fucked; the non-Bush Republicans will shatter them like glass.

Posted by Fnarf | November 10, 2006 3:57 PM
6

And if Bush blocks all attempts to change things, the Administration and the GOP will be rightly charged with being obstructionist.

This vote was a very loud and clear message that things must change. If Bush blocks all attempts to change, it will be on his head.

Of course, the GOP will try to blame it on the Dems, but if in 2008 we are still in Iraq and there are by then maybe 60 million people without health care, the public is going to start looking for a good guillotine.

Posted by Pale Rider | November 10, 2006 7:20 PM
7

But Bush doesn't give a shit; he's out of here in two years. I think you will continue to see a continuation of the cynical GOP strategy that's already started: Republicans running against Bush.

Posted by Fnarf | November 11, 2006 12:24 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).