Democrats still don t get it.
I didn t think I d be writing a sentence like that in 2006. I didn t always get it myself. I came of age in the Clinton presidency, a presidency that was under unprecedented attack from a well-orchestrated right wing media and aided by a complicit mainstream press that allows itself to be used as a megaphone for political attacks. One need only to read books like Blinded By The Right, The Hunting of the Presidency, or The Clinton Wars for an insight into how it operated for eight straight years.
The important nugget of information to glean from those battles is how the Clintons responded to the assault. It wasn t a matter of simply dodging when the other side swung or waiting on them to make the first move. President Clinton and his team made an art of putting his opponents in a box that required them to respond and not him, whether the enemy was the press, Newt Gingrich or Bob Dole. It was the other side who was forced to respond, and it was the other side who especially post -1994 who became increasingly frustrated as the Clinton presidency marched on.
The Gore campaign dialed the clock back. They continually looked to the press for approval rather than whipping them into shape. They didn t learn anything from President Clinton. Gore understands better now, and has shown in his work for an Inconvenient Truth that he s past the point of simply accepting the media s hackneyed right-wing birthed premises as fact in order to put him on the defensive. He s got the benefit of morality and science on his side, and acts like it. Not very useful retroactively, but it has given his crusade the vital vigor it needed.
Yet, the Democratic side and in this I include both the netroots and the establishment, still clearly doesn t get it. The belief is that while there is a progressive infrastructure that didn t exist just six years ago they can simply pour facts on something and hope for the best. In 2004 I couldn t believe the amount of people on the left who thought that simply debunking the Swift Boat Veterans, with no forceful response or even better attack on Bush for his service, would somehow negate the issue. On election night I remember watching the results come in from Ohio online and how I thought it was so asinine that I was relying on Cuyahoga county (where Cleveland is) to deliver the election when a semi-competently run campaign could have blown the GOP out of the water in a lot of states that were given up for dead before John Kerry even became the party s nominee.
Now we ve got the 2006 election, and Democrats still don t get it. The movement is still focused not on trying to set the table, but in cleaning up conservative messes. The blogs don t see themselves and aren t being utilized by Democrats in order to bring important issues to light. They set themselves up purely as response mechanisms, never seeming to realize that if you re responding you re already losing. Case in point: Karl Rove attacks Jack Murtha and John Kerry s military service. Sure, that s a comment that deserves responding to and denouncing, but why is that the extent of it? Why can t liberal blogs and liberal outlets (talk radio, for instance) start pushing storylines about Republicans and forcing them to respond to it? But the emergent media is just one side of it. Democratic politicians need to also stop thinking of blogs just as campaign organizing tools or fundraising elements, and also cogs in a message machine. It s no coincidence that the storylines being pushed by the RNC also are echoed by Republican members of congress and conservative pundits. This forces the mainstream press to cover the story, and puts Democrats on the defensive.
There s no reason this can t and shouldn t be done. I honestly don t know what s inhibiting it, though my cynical side says that the left has looked at the whole thing, shrugged, and decided to consign itself to an electoral minority. How else to explain why people won t use something that is so easy to activate? The pieces are all there, both institutionally and organically. I m frankly tired of people getting so much passion for a primary election but are unable to muster any sort of conviction to fight the bigger battles that affect people s lives.
Rove is a troll. He says what he says to try to get our heads to explode. We take the bait every time, and, I agree, that’s stupid. The Repugs are really good at exploding heads; we have to learn how to turn the tables and start doing it to them.
The key is to be gleefully and deliberately hypocritical; to turn projection into a sport, to attack not only your opponent’s strength, but– this is the key– to deliberately attack from your greatest point of weakness! Draft-dogdger Rove questioning the courage and patriotism of war heroes– I mean that’s just a case in point perfect example.
The only person on the left I’ve seen who has any sense of how to do this properly is Michael Moore. He makes wingnuts’ heads explode, it’s like popcorn. I love it. Need more of that.
Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart and Randi Rhodes are fantastic in their own too, but their schtick goes right over the heads of the wingnuts– they’re best for preaching to the choir or to those most likely to be converted.
The problem is, to do this properly, you have to have balls the size of a sofa… and either a complete lack of self-awareness or a really evil taste for the jugular. We have to be so bold, so brazen, that we stun them into flummoxed, blithering, jabbering, uselessness.
So:
1) Repugs want to raise your taxes
2) Repugs are trying to institute in “Sperm to Worm” federal control over your entire life from before conception until after your body is dead and decaying
3) Repugs are soft on defense and weak on foreign policy
4) Repugs are the single most dangerous cause of moral decay and the destruction of the American family
And say it all with a straight face, loudly, over and over again, lustily, and consistently.
I have to say that I agree with much of what you’re saying. I think the cause is pretty simple – that Democrats really do want to talk about substance, and still believe that politics is about informed debate rather than attack-dog sound bytes. Part of me agrees with you that we should imitate the Repubicans’ ruthless style – it would certainly be more effective. But another part of me wonders what road that will take us down.
Having said that, I do think that there are 2 things liberal blogs can and should be doing. The first is to target issues that wedge the Republicans and discredit them in a systematic way. Just saying “Bush is a liar” doesn’t really appeal to independents. We do way too much preaching to the choir. The second is that blogs, because they have the room to do so, have the ability to lay out a substantive liberal agenda that Democrats can rally around – like energy independence, health care, etc.
The ability that the (bigger) blogs have is to force the MSM to take a given idea and run with it. We do still have to work through the MSM filter in order to get our message across (whatever Kos says). What we need to be thinking about is how to use blogs to push journalists to relaying the stories we want, so that we can penetrate the minds of voters we covet.
I’m guessing you made a typo here because the link you provided shows no such evidence.
The reason Democrats can’t “push the agenda” is that their agenda is increasingly unpopular. More taxes? More regulations? Less security? Wow, sign me up!
“that Democrats really do want to talk about substance,”
Please. Thats stretching it even for this site. Democrats have been notorious for ignoring substance in favor of keeping their options open. What is the Democratic Party position on Iraq? Stay and fight, immediate withdrawal, none of the above? Remember Wexler getting tired of waiting for his party to take a position on Social Security (other than Republicans are evil). Democrats don’t blow their noses without asking a focus group what color hanky to use.
Dugger
They are waiting and waiting for republicans to ala loony Murtha.http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002274897_socsec14.html
I think Oliver has a good point, but the way I see it is that, more than responding forcefully to attacks and putting the attacker on the defensive (which is a great idea), is they need to advance a clear agenda. They need to say they stand for A, B, C and D, which set them apart from the GOPers, and hammer it home over and over again the way GOPers hammer home their talking points. I just don’t see Dems doing that en masse.
Running as “Republicans Lite” or “We’re not those guys” doesn’t cut it. The last Democrat to take the WH away from the GOP was Clinton, who had health care as one of his issues to set the Dems apart. It should be on the list again, as should open government and accountibility.
Rheinhard: IKYABWAI? How clever!
Frank: you’re precisely correct. Which is what the Republican party has been doing for years.
There are two elements to this. One is that Democrats, cowed by the MSM and the consultant class, refuse to stand up on issues (”Oh my God! Suburban moms and Tim Russert don’t like our position on this issue!!!”). This includes Iraq, and practically everything else on the table. The endless GOP talking point that America has rejected Democratic ideals flies in the face of the facts. In fact, it’s pretty amazing how many liberal ideas are a part of the American consensus in light of the left’s inability to work the media. The only way Republicans can get elected in the modern era is to bow at the altar of that consensus (I mean, I would love for them to run on privatizing social security and cutting of school lunch programs, but even they’re not that dumb).
The other element, as I describe here, is in pushing a message through the press. To me, that is more important than policy while Dems endlessly focus on policy which most voters just don’t care about in the abstract without a forceful narrative to sell it to them.
And what message would that be if not policy? If your only message is “Republicans Bad!!!”, you’re seen, rightly, as nothing but obstructionints. You’ve got be be FOR something, and that something has to be more than puppy dog smiles and fields of sunshine.
Republicans didn’t figure that out in 1996 & 1998 and that’s why they lost. At least Clinton, like lordrunningclam noted, layed out an agenda (whether he actually enacted it or not.)
I agree with Oliver on this. How hard is it to come up with some talking points and stick to them? There are some real no-brainers that can be returned to again and again with a Rovian simplicity:
* raising the minimum wage
* ending tax breaks for the wealthy
* fixing medicare specifically and healthcare in general
* education
* getting the fuck out of Iraq
These are all areas where Dems do well anyway, and they also happen to be the things that Americans actually give a shit about. So instead of saying, “Well, here’s the thing about immigration [gay marriage, flag burning, etc.]“, Democrats should be saying. “Immigration is something we need to look at long term, but what really matters to Americans right now is healthcare, and here’s how I’m going to fix that.”
I say it is the way you address the oppositions tatics. How easy is it to just be nasty or vile? Clinton had it right. When chickenhawks question your military service, don’t start showcasing medals or discussing the issue. You simple respond that their screams are non-issues, unserious, and point to the fact that you have more important things to talk about(Healthcare). People made a career on trying to crucify Clinton, and how did he respond: Its unfortunate behavior on thier part and I am willing to listen if your serious but please don’t get in the way of me making this country flourish.
Or you can take the Paul Hacket or Wesley Clark approach: Bullies resort to these tatics because of thier own parties insecurity and the best way to stop a bully is to confront them to thier face. A confident man who defends himself doesn’t scream or thump thier chest because it marginalizes himself, instead you marginalize the opposition with straightforwardness and confidence.
Clinton was soo successfull because he had results and he was confident. He didn’t allow himself to be bullied like Carter. Finally, he whipped Dole so badly because he refused to be nasty.
I just hope the next president actually believes in..you know… GOVERNING! I also want our president to be intellegent or at least able to have leadership qualities. Bush has proven Darrrow correct:
“When I was a boy I was told that anybody could become President.
Now I’m beginning to believe it.”
Clarence Darrow
1857-1938
That sounds like a winner. The last election where Health Care was Issue #1 was 1994.
But really, did Clinton “put his opponents in a box” instead of settling for being “Republican Lite”? As I recall, among 42’s achievements were NAFTA, killing welfare, and bombing Iraq over WMDs. If someone were to run on that platform today, I have no doubt they’d be labeled “neo-con” till the cows came home.
Losing?
You are right to a point. The Democrats still need to learn how to respond. The success of Clinton in dealing with Republicans, and ultimately the media, wasn’t just the ability to put Republicans in a box, and frustrate them to no end. It also was the ability to respond, quickly, and forcefully in such a manner as to either negate the attack, or in some cases, turn the attack back on the attacker.
Democrats cannot even respond to attacks from Republicans or the media adequately enough to counter the narrative being formed. Until the Democratic Party as a whole sets up an effective “rapid response team”, the media will continue to allow Democrats to be defined however Republicans set it up.
All of this is with the caveat, that some attacks are to be dismissed out of hand, with an appropriately dissmisive response. This is what Al Gore learned in the intervening years. When to respond, who to respond to, and most importantly, with what tone to repond in.
Blogs are great as the first line against these attacks. The facts that can be marshalled within just a few hours all across the blogosphere is pretty amazing, however, until Democratic candidates begin utilizing that power, not only for the data gathering capabilities, but, like Oliver said, defining the narrative it all is for naught.
However, none of this matters until Democrats learn start using the media, the same way Republicans do.
that should be “Democratic party they are just NOT a supernova….”
Farris,
That would be funny except you know that with out a parties blessing or support you cannot win. Hacket didn’t have a chance in hell and he still almost won. They are good models for the Democratic party they are just a supernova in the political atmosphere. Can you point to any politician who gets in and is instantly a party savior?
More whining. I’m a regular listener of Franken, and he “challenges” Republicans every single day. As does Oberman, and Colmes (in his own wimpy way).
Consign itself to being in the minority? We were in the majority for 40 years, and we’ll be in the majority again because that’s how our two-party political system works. Oh, and by the way, 6 years ago, a Democrat left the White House, who will prove to be one of the best Presidents of the 20th century.
Clinton’s “war room” team was special in their ability to frame an issue, or news event, in ways advantagous to themselves.
Rick Pitino, former Coach of the Celtics, once said “If you’re expecting Larry Bird, Kevin McHale, and Robert Parish to walk through that door, you’re going to be waiting a long time.”
I’ll paraphrase, by saying that “If you’re expecting Bill Clinton to walk through that door,” and rescue the Democratic party from it’s own inadequacy, you’re going to be waiting a long time.
When push comes to shove, all Clinton proved was that a Southern Democrat has a genuine advantage over a Northern Democrat in winning the Presidency. If you don’t pull at least two Red States, you need EVERYTHING ELSE to fall into place. Kerry almost made it happen, but could not.
Cripes. Bush has a good week and you guys all turn to a heaping pile of jello. You made some good points, but in context of the entire piece, it sounds like more of the same self-flaggelation, OW.
JK
Good post, JK. The Bush Administration has developed an unbelievable talent for screwing things up so Democrats just need to keep their powder dry. There is plenty of fodder to use if the dems just have the cahones to speak frankly to the republicans spin.
Here’s why Democrats can’t win:
They believe in
* raising the minimum wage
* ending tax breaks for the wealthy
* fixing medicare specifically and healthcare in general
* education
* getting the fuck out of Iraq
It’s not just Bush’s “good week” (I, and the polls, don’t think it’s been that good for him), its the continued Democratic incapability to capitalize on anything. Don’t you think I want to write about Democrats kicking ass and taking names? But they aren’t. They’re whimpering at best, losers at worst.
As I see it, the Republicans put together a winning strategy based on diverse and sometimes conflicting special interests. There are people who are pro life who will never vote for a democrat because they aren’t. During the last election I knew an avid hunter who thought Bush was the biggest jackass on two legs but was conviced that Kerry would personally send troops to his house to confiscate his guns. Some people wouldn’t vote for dems purely on racial or religious grounds. I figure collectively the single issue Republican voters probably amount to 25-30% of the electorate, which is about Bush’s remaining hard core base right now. Screw ‘em. They’re lost.
If you can’t win elections by stating your core beliefs and illustrating how the differ from the other guy, then you don’t deserve to win elections. Lots and lots of people think the US is off track right now. I believe the Dems can win if they run a core values kind of campaign and state exactly what separates them from the GOPers and what they would do to get the country back on track. They need a broad based approach. They’ll never win basing campaigns on single issues.
Don’t worry lrc, I definitely believe that these are all suicidal issues.
“Of course we (Republicans) believe all these things; we believe in social security; we believe in work for the unemployed; we believe in saving homes. Cross our hearts and hope to die, we believe in all these things; but we do not like the way the present Administration is doing them. Just turn them over to us. We will do all of them-we will do more of them-we will do them better; and, most important of all, the doing of them will not cost anybody anything.”
FDR
If any Democrat had run on those issues in the last six years and lost, I’d be right there with you saying retool, retool. But the plain facts are that they haven’t and I would argue its the reason they have lost and will keep losing.
Frank D:
All fine ideas I support 100%
I’m sorry, I can’t tell if you are trying to be serious or ironic. The last 6 years have completely buggered my irony detector. If you’re serious, well fine. The dems should run on those and the GOPers should run on the opposite an we will see. If you’re being ironic, then ha ha – that’s a good one.
It’s really hard for the Dems to control what gets covered when they don’t get to set the agenda. They can’t call Russert ot Mathews or O’Reilly for that matter and say I’d like to come on to discuss some issue. It doesn’t work that way. Producers contact potential participants to come in and discuss the issue du jour, usually one that the Repubs put on the agenda.
Talk radio is a lost cause altogether. It’s like going on a blind date, stag, for the Dems. With Air America and a few other venues they are able to mingle a bit, but it’s often in a beat bar near closing time. Not all that listen to the hate-mongers are righties, as some like me occasionally tune in to see what the latest talking points are. But, like the sun rising each morning it is guaranteed, based on what the issue is or what was said by the left the day before in response, there is going to be an all day down-dressing of “liberals” about to take place. Forget this dumb-downed following and those on FOX for that matter. They are lost souls who don’t turn elections. It’s a captive audience, and unless Turner or some other mogul buys Clear Channel, Westwood, etc. this is unfertile ground until more markets can be penetrated.
Similarly the entire south should be written off. The last election proved that we don’t need them anyhow to win an election. If the voting system allowed, Ohio would have turned the last election and a solid red south would have been left wondering how that strategy put them back in the bottom of the barrel where they belong. Just to see Zell Miller crawl back under his rock would be worth telling them to go pound salt.
The Dems, regardless of what venue they are in, have to hammer the same talking points no matter what the discuss is about. Most Republicans are really good at shifting the attention away from their weaknesses to their opponents weaknesses. Most Dems are MIA in shifting it right back in their face. Here’s an example of how it could go:
Host: There is about to be a vote on another $90 billion for the Iraq war, do you plan on voting for it?
Dem: I will (won’t) vote for it, but we have to stop throwing money at this problem at some point in time because with Republicans in charge our deficits and national debt are out of control. We’re mortgaging our children’s future to the Chinese (bogeymen help).
Rep: We have to approve this spending so our troops have the means to defeat terrorism. We don’t like the current fiscal situation, but we have a war to fight that has got to be won.
Dem: Wait a second, let’s not forget that this was a war of choice. We failed to get the bad guys in Afghanistan due this distraction, and now we have a whole new group in Iraq, folks like Zarkawi who were nobodies before the Republicans decided that pre-emtive war was the way to go. A bad situation was made much, much worse.
Rep: Well we’re fighting them over there so we don’t have to face them here. The right decision was made, and we have the terrorists on the run. We can’t afford to let Iraq slip into the hands of our enemies.
Dem: First of all we never had to fight them here, mainly because they slipped under the Republican radar on 9/11, and second we have no better idea who they are over there than we did before the invasion of Iraq. Especially after all of the “fixing” the Republicans have been doing since they control all aspects of our government. Do you just want to kill everyone over there? Is that the Republican plan, as Cal Thomas just proposed in a recent column?
Rep: No, we want to get those who mean us harm, one at a time.
Dem: Republicans are causing more harm than they are fixing, and their tired old war plans just aren’t working. All war all the time is not the answer.
Host: What would you suggest?
Dem: Here is where a plan is needed. To first admitting that what we did was wrong would go a long way to let the world know we’re serious. Then beg, heck, even pay if we have to for the UN to put a different face on things as we pull out. We have to show the Iraqis that we don’t have designs on their country and that we have their back by pulling out to the perimeters as Kerry and Murtha suggest. (It’s only a start, but a policy can be drawn around this.)
Who on the left do you know that could carry this conversation? Not many!
Dems have to attack Repubs at their every “perceived” strength. Strong on defense, make it common knowledge that they throw money at the military with no accountability, screw the troops at the margins, and start unecessary wars and then conduct them as poorly as can be imagined.
Do the sane with fiscal responsibility, values via corruption, even attack their faith every single day by simply interjecting a simple phrase:
If Republicans think that Jesus Christ would support (insert entire Republican agenda) then I must have a defective bible.
Hold their feet to a fire so hot that it burns your hands in the process, but they won’t be standing when your done.
OW…if you don’t think this has been a good week for Bush, then everything else you say lacks punch. At some point, you just have to give the “devil his due,” right?
Evil #1 terror guy dead. Rove skates. Bush travels to Iraq.
That’s a good week for Bush. And a GREAT week, for our troops…who deserve to feel good about themseleves and the job they’re doing.
Will it end the war sooner? I have my serious doubts. But this is a good week for Bush. Let’s get that out of the way, shall we?
Bill Clinton came out of nowhere in 1992. I had no frigging idea who the man was, sittiing across from Paul Tsongas. Did you?
Heck..I think Al Gore could upset the apple cart. A bit of a wild card. Kerry is just white noise the past month or two.
I really think, however, that the future of the Democratic party lies in the “new” blood….H. Clinton, Obama, Richardson, Edwards, to name a few.
All I’m saying is that you have to have a bit of faith. The 4 people I mention above….they’ve got their shit together. Faith.
JK
I thought that the #1 evil terror guy was Osama bin Laden?
factcheck Says:
June 14th, 2006 at 8:38 pm
I thought that the #1 evil terror guy was Osama bin Laden?
factcheck, that’s so … September 11th, 2001! Are you also under the illusion we invaded Iraq to find stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction? Can you not keep up with the Bush administration’s Programme of Bullshit?
And the so-called “conservatives” in the republican party can campaign on on their lousy record, promise more of the same in addition to the following:
Staying in Iraq, til hell freezes over, even building permanet military bases thereEnding the “death tax” for millionaires and increasing the federal deficit by more tax cuts while working folks get crumbs and their children get the bill
Privitazing social securityStagnant wage levels with ever increasing gasoline pricesAttacking Iran with nuclear weapons
Democrats could be so lucky that the republicans were that brazen and stupid, rather than their usual cheap stunts.
Again, I would dispute whether this is a good week for Bush. I’ve given the devil his due on numerous occasions in the past – I just don’t think he gets it this week.
I had faith in 2000, 2002 and 2004. What did I get for it? More of the same. I’d like to think there’s another Bill Clinton out there, and maybe it is Al Gore, but even as great as that would be – don’t you see there’s something functionally wrong with a party when it needs the political equivalent of Jesus to save it from damnation every four years? The conservative movement is a plug-in apparatus, a team of people willing to fight no matter who the top man is. The Democrats apparently can’t even run a primary campaign in Conneticut. Come on!
Do you mean this Bill Clinton?
I know Oliver doesn’t like advice from the other side, but if the Dems nominate Al Gore for President and Gore then chooses Ed Rendell as his running mate, there’s no way you guys lose.
Must have missed the part where President invaded and occupied Iraq when the murderer of 3,000 Americans went unpunished.
Oh, wait, that didn’t happen.
Of course.
Bill Clinton didn’t do what he said should be done, and somehow that makes him a better man than the President who did.
OK.
Frank_D:
“Of course.
Bill Clinton didn t do what he said should be done, and somehow that makes him a better man than the President who did.
OK.”
Does the republican echo of “wag the dog”, “no war for Monica” mean anything to you.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=14642
The last ELECTED President and First Lady we had was under attack the entire time he was in office.
I’m sorry, but the last line of your post had me laughing to hard to type.
So you’re in 2000 – 2004 Battalion of the Bush Haters’ Tin Foil Hat Brigade?