The Democratic party, by allowing itself to be defined by Republican issues and by filling a niche just a little less far to the right has driven politics to the right fringe. This article argues that Democrats can be more influencial, more effective, and more progressive simultaneously by defining issues in terms of values that Democrats have always held, especially issues involving fairness and democracy.
Not until the Democrats succeed in defining themselves on their own terms can they go head to head with the other guys and regain control of their tails.
Since the monumental defeat of Presidential candidate George McGovern in 1972 it has been conventional wisdom that the Democratic party loses elections because its candidates are not centrist enough. So the party has been moving ever to the right. Its center of gravity - judged by the way many congressional members vote - is quite farto the right of the center of gravity of the Republican party in 1972. As it moved right, it has lost seats in Congress. Nor can it reliably be claimed that the process has led to greater success in gaining the Presidency.
Meanwhile, the Republican party, controlled by its far-right fringe, has been an almost unbeatable force. Reagan and Bush41 held the presidency for 12 years as the Democrats fell out of favor in Congress. By 1994 Republicans controlled the house, and Newt Gingrich was offering America "government by trainwreck." Clinton, as an intelligent friend of mine quipped, turned out to be "the best Republican president the nation has had since Eisenhower."
It is hard to argue that the policies of the far right have been very helpful. It is harder to argue that the cabal from the torrid states has ruled in an exemplary manner. How did the the lunatic fringe do it? Simple. They appealed to greed. And envy. And malice. Hatred. Fear. The war in Iraq and the forces that inspired it were irrational fear. Irrational fear killed health care reform for Hillary Clinton. Greed is the basis for monstrous budget deficits, unless one believes in the fringe right's "kill the beast." idea. In that case, one has to believe that the radical fringe is planning to overthrow the government. Is this responsible government?
Consider Republican's "hot button" campaign issues. Fear of drugs. Hatred of lazy people. Fear of crime. Fear of people who look different from 'ourselves.' Tax has been a hot button issue. It is not an issue about fear. But it sells as an issue of greed. There is even the fringe argument that "It's my money that the government is taking and they have no right to do it." That language stopped promptly when Republicans held both houses of Congress and the Presidenc; nevertheless, "Lower taxes" has been a mantra for the Republicans since Ronald Reagan. Bush41 ran and won on "Read my lips; No new taxes." And he lost for breaking that promise. Newt Gingrich's "government by trainwreck" was also about holding the line on taxes. Americans don't like taxes. They do not understand what value it is they get from them.
Well, we are embarking on a social experiment in which the government, while actually cutting taxes substantially may succeed in undermining programs that bring the services that are paid for by taxes. Democrats assume that the reason Republicans are winning - discounting factors like apparent manipulations of the voting process in Florida and Ohio- is because American voters actually prefer the Republican agenda.
But the problem ever since 1972 is that there simply has not been a Democratic agenda. Democrats have not succeeded in demonstrating a commitment to values that are uniquely their own. Nor have they gone to the trouble to define or defend those values. Nor have they tried to connect values with issues, policies or programs.
Instead, they have spent all their efforts dodging the signs Republicans would pin on them. It's like an elaborate game of pin the tail on the donkey. Republicans say "Tax and spend Liberals." And Democrats say "No we're not." And Republicans say "Weak on Defense" and Democrats say "No we are not. We are really strong." Republicans say "Servants of special interests.." Democrats say "No. Wait. Not really."
This is a ridiculous game because in playing it Democrats can only lose. If they move in the opposite direction, they look bad. If they move in the same direction, they endorse the Republican position and look less good than the Republicans. They lose not by virtue of how they respond. They lose by virtue of responding. Labeling does not dignify a response.
The whole Republican game is an effort to subvert the political process. Engage in it, and it takes the focus off the issues. Democrats lose. Voters lose. So... why not stop doing it? Why not stop this ridiculous game? It's time for Democrats to stop imagining that they lose only because they are not enough like the Republicans. So long as Democrats engage in that game, we must always lose.
For lack of choice, voters always lose. For lack of voice, progressives always lose. For lack of proper process, democracy always loses. It's just a bad deal all around. There are core values that people who are Democrats cling to. And these core values are compelling. Most voters share them. Some staunch Republican voters will share them less than staunch Democratic voters, but all believe in them.
There are no guarantees in politics. The Democratic party is going to lose roughly half of the elections over time. Nor is there any way for the Democratic party to force its candidates to represent its message.
The party can help. It can work to get the message out on issues. Issues matter. Be responsible. If your message about issues is not selling, sometimes it may be because you chose the wrong issue. Sometimes it may be because you presented it badly. The party can also evaluate ways in which candidates can best communicate with voters in their areas. It can prepare and run issues ads. It can test to find out how issues ads affect voters. The number of ways of getting the message out is huge.
Bloggers by the hundreds, or by the thousands are doing it. And they are getting paid by advertisers, for gosh sakes! People want to engage on these issues. So engage. Where the Republicans have absolutely beaten the Democrats for thirty years is in defining the debate on their own turf using their own issues. Where the debate has been about issues it has been Republicans who have grabbed the issues and framed them. And the issues they have grabbed have been ones that Republicans are strong on. But Republicans are very weak on a number of issues.
If the Democratic party had spent the last thirty years drubbing into the minds of the American voter the best of its ideas, the progressive things that have made the party endure over centuries, a lot of the problems America has today would be easier to solve. The ultimate goal must be to get the voting system back on track so that the public debate is about issues rather than personalities. Clinton and Reagan won on the basis of personality. BushW won the first time on the basis of personality, with a little help from his friends and relatives. Dukakis and Dole lost for looking leaden. Believe it. Or not. But it is better to believe it.
There is some hope for issues politics. MoveOn, if it plays any role in the election this year, will do so because they have engaged in a dialogue with voters. They have worked to discover key issues and frame public debate on these issues. Similarly, there are a number of blogs and web sites addressing Progressive issues. All of this work is raising the consciousness of progressives within the Democratic party who individually assumed they were each the last of a dying breed.
The Daily Kos and a number of other blogs have had a similar effect, perhaps even a more profound one. A lot of us have been surprised to find out that there are an awful lot of like-minded people out there. There are a lot of people who share progressive views who see that those views have been under-represented for almost three decades. The party needs to energize these voters, for these are the people who will work day and night for free to get out the vote, get out the message, and defend the faith. If one defines it in the right way I bet there are twice as many progressives as there are people who inhabit the right fringe.Energizing this group in the presence of a program to sell democracy to Americans on the basis of its merits is bound to meet with occasional success.
We've tried fighting the war the Democratic old guard way. We've tried being shadow Republicans. That war is over, or it ought to be, because we lost. We lost on all the issues. We lost on all the legislation. We lost in terms of cultivating people who are good at standing for something. We lost in terms of representing the best interests of all Americans.
And in the political arena the result is that the Democrats are viewed by Republicans with a kind of comtempt they deserve. Republicans pretend it is for believing something different, for being something other than Republicans. But it is for failing to actually believe and think differently. It is for failing to have an agenda, and for failing to preach it.
The Democratic party and its leaders deserve respect and votes only to the extent that they can articulate a vision distinct from that of the Republican party. Not necessarily in opposition in every respect, but distinct. And so far there has been a notable paucity of issues. There is a faint echo about civil rights, but it is assumed by most Americans- rightly or wrongly - that the issue was solved long ago. There is the manrtra about freedom of choice, but there are a lot of women who are Republicans, especially in the NE who agree with this point of view. If this is the sum total Democrats can bring to the political debate in America, we might as well pack up our bags and go home.
Americans are upset about energy. Democrats have, from time to time advocated a responsible energy policy. But it is reasonable to keep advocating even when it is not a popular subject. Democrats have failed to do so. Americans are upset about Iraq. And Democrats will reap some benefit in this election cycle for being pinned by the Republicans as 'peaceniks.' But the issue is not peace. The Iraq issue is responsible foreign policy.
Americans, if they believed that the voting process in the US has veered so far from reflecting the actual choices voters have made or intend to make as to be considered dysfunctional. It seems like we should all be able to agree that pretty virtually all living American citizens over the age of 18 who have the intention of voting for a candidate ought to have the right to exercise that intention. And when they do vote their votes ought to be reported in such a way that we can be certain there is a complete and perfect correspondence between votes cast and the aggregate vote count for every candidate in every precinct of the nation.
This is not rocket science. But it does require some exercise of vigilance and common sense. Much more than has been used to date. There are plenty of affirmative Big Picture issues that should resonate with voters; the above list must just barely scratch the surface. These are not oppositional issues. They are not issues where Democrats define themselves in opposition to Republicans. Rather, they represent categories where Democrats are and have historically been ever stronger. Move the debate to such categories, get the country involved, and it will be much easier to elect Democratic candidates.
These are places where Democrats can advocate for the right answers and Republicans can say "me too" for a change. The category of things that Republicans are good at and the category of things that the Democrats are good at are different. Republicans are interested primarily in making capitalism work. To a significant extent they defend Adam Smith's "invisible hand" assumptions. This they have done frequently even when the assumption is wrong. Democrats are interested primarily in making democracy work. They defend individual freedoms and human dignity in the face of onslaughts from governmental and other institutional forces. Much of the time the interests of democracy and capitalism run parallel to each other. Some of the time they oppose one another. It's not that capitalism is good and democracy is bad. Or vice versa. There must be a balance. That is what the process is for.
Nor is it the case that Democrats just want to tax and make government bigger. Nor is it the case that Republicans just want to reduce taxes and make government smaller. Given the chance for just six years, in fact, Republicans made government bigger, more expensive and less responsive.
Democrats have to understand that if they have a more aggressive social program than Republicans, they need to be able to shift the focus from taxes to the benefits of the programs. But they assume that because a program was funded back in 1968 every voter still remembers the problem the program was designed to solve and will willingly support it. Most voters don't know. Most don't really care. But they ought to. So for the last thirty years, Democrats could have made some headway had they been more articulate the ideals they have championed and the benefits that flow from the programs they initiated.
This election cycle a candidate might also gain much ground teaching about how Republican corruption has pillaged the coffers of the treasury. It is almost impossible to find a tenet of the Republican articles of faith that does not have some hint of grubby fingerprints. Republicans have been profligate spendthrifts over the last six years and if each voter understands how much George Bush has borrowed in his name or the name of his children, he might feel less sanguine about how fiscally responsible Republicans supposedly are. Conventional wisdom is that this year's election will be about the war in Iraq. And it probably will be. I think Americans understand that the war in Iraq is not just a failed operation, but a metaphor for the Republican Party and its current mode of leadership. The whole premise for the war in Iraq was manufactured out of whole cloth.
There were no weapons of mass destruction. There was no link to the war on terror. Nor, in my opinion, did it matter to Bush whether there were any. The invasion was going to happen. If we can believe the leaked Downing Street memo, that was the policy. We do not know the reason for the policy. Maybe it was about Iraqi oil. Maybe it was about outdoing Bush41. Maybe it was about Haliburton stock options. Maybe it was just a humungous red herring to guarantee incumbents a free ride in the upcoming election.
But it was based on a lie. It turned out badly. And it defines a whole category of Government By Misdirection that has been the Bush hallmark of governance.Instead of talking about real issues, the practice has been to create bits of theater that distract our attention. Then, if the president gets his way on a policy that most voters will recognize as really bad policy, they will be looking the other way and not notice. If the president wins a popular battle, he can crow like a cock in every corner of the union, trumpeting his success. This way he has it both ways. He gets credit for the good news but the bad remains invisible. Iraq is the primary vehicle of misdirection. And that may be where its principal ill lies. A lot of voters have a sense that this is going on.Candidates may not be able to say it, but it needs to be said.The party needs to get this message out. Bloggers are. But this will reach the party faithul, not necessarily the average voter. Move On might be. Democrats can pitch the idea of getting out of Iraq because the occupation is not working. And that will probably sell. But the Iraq behavior is part of a larger pattern of deception. Voters, at least subconsciously, understand that they were duped. And they are mad. The trick will be to get enough of them mad enough to change the modus operandi of the Republican Party as well as that of the Democratic Party. This is not simply a partisan fight. This is a bipartisan fight for the soul of democracy. The Torrid State Republican Cabal has duped the whole country and it is time to come clean.
The Democratic party needs to be prepared for the idea that some of its own prominent members might be de-throned for being part of the problem. And if that is the cost of transforming the Democratic party from being a shadow of the Republican party, then that is a cost definitely worth paying. Until Democrats learn to frame the debate on their own turf, they will be tempted to play the same old game. But they will lose. They will deserve to lose. It's not losing itself that matters. It's making the voice of your party count that matters. Aping the other party may win some elections but it forfeits any advantage of having more than one party.
The point is this: The Democratic Party has been losing influence since the 1970's. It has always responded by assuming its policy was wrong or unpopular. But actually, its just that the Republican Party has been allowed to define the Demcratic Party. It has been playing 'pin the tail on the donkey.' And it's time to stop the game. Democrats need to define themselves on the basis of issues. They need to swing at the ball. And if they go down, they go down swinging. The party needs to get its ideas out. It needs to show how its legislative agenda is important to the quality of life of the citizens of this country. There are values issues. there are programmatic issues. Pick some. Pitch them. And if you win, the process is well served and everyone wins. If you lose on the basis of pitching issues, then Democrats have to work either on changing the substance or the style of the pitch. And again, both the public and the party win. Only if Democrats succeed in defining themselves on their own terms can they go head to head with the other guys and regain control of their tails.
Copyright: Stephen R. Brubaker, 2006. All Rights Reserved