The Lesson Every Democratic Politician Must Learn
In an op-ed in Wednesday's Boston Globe, author Paul Waldman offers Democratic politicians (and their consultants) some sage advice:
He continues:
Yes. Yes. Yes. Waldman concludes:
I would argue it's THE lesson. In fact, I've made the very same argument before:
What the Democrats need to get better at is acting collectively to frame important debates. They need to appear confident at all times (even when they don't feel it) and be ready to go on the offensive immediately when new issues arise. That's the only way to set the terms of the debate. As I observed in a previous post:
If [Democrats] want to build long-term political success, they
need to understand what the Republicans have been doing right,
so they can fix what they've been doing wrong.
If there's one thing Republicans have understood and Democrats
haven't, it is that politics is not about issues. Politics is about
identity. The candidates and parties that win are not those
aligning their positions most precisely with a majority of the
electorate. The winners are those who form a positive image in
the public mind of who they are (and a negative image of who
their opponents are). Issues are a vehicle to create that identity,
one that combines with symbolism and narrative to shape what
the public thinks about when they think about Democrats and
Republicans.
Think about what happens in campaign after campaign. The
Democrat comes before the public and says, "If you read my
10-point policy plan, I'm sure you'll vote for me. Let's go over it
point by point." The Republican then comes before the public,
points to the Democrat, and says, "That guy is a weak, elitist
liberal who hates you and everything you stand for. I'm one of
you and he's not." And guess who wins.
He continues:
After it's all over, Democrats wonder why they lost, when a
majority of the public favors nearly all the items on their
agenda. Americans want a higher minimum wage, legal
abortion, strong environmental protections, universal
healthcare, and a tax policy that isn't tilted toward the wealthy,
to name a few. But voters don't read policy papers, and they
don't make decisions with a checklist of issues in their hands.
That's why Republican campaigns operate on a different level:
Whom do you identify with? Whom can you trust? Who is
strong, and who is weak? These questions transcend issues,
which is why Republicans -- who know they are at a
disadvantage on the issues -- spend so much time talking about
them.
It's the last question, that of strength and weakness, that vexes
Democrats in election after election. While it is usually played
out in the arena of national security, it is only partly about foreign
affairs and defense policy. The answer to the Democrats' strength
problem is to understand that here, as in all areas of politics, the
key is identity.
Yes. Yes. Yes. Waldman concludes:
But strength doesn't flow from a policy proposal, and it can't be
demonstrated with a hawkish vote. The public will be convinced
that Democrats are strong when they stand up for their beliefs,
take political risks, and don't run scared every time they get
attacked by Republicans. Think about it this way: Martin
Luther King Jr. was a pacifist, and no one ever called him weak.
In short, it isn't about voting the way you think the public wants
you to vote, and it isn't about your 10-point plan. It's about who
you are. That's just one lesson Democrats need to learn from
Republicans.
I would argue it's THE lesson. In fact, I've made the very same argument before:
It's not that positions on issues don't matter at all, it's that they
matter far less than conventional wisdom would have us believe.
The DLC types are convinced that in order to win, Democrats
must stake out the illusive ideological center. As a result, they
are engaged in a perpetual quest to find the perfect centrist
position all the issues of the day. . . .
The Republicans don't win by endorsing a platform of positions
each designed to appeal to a majority of people. Any number of
planks on the Republican platform are extreme and would
never garner majority support on their own. But through
selective emphasis, focus on character, and general framing of
issues, the Republicans still manage to win. And they've done
so without ever trying to move to the center. What Republicans
long ago realized is that voters don't vote for a platform. They
often vote for a person. Sometimes they vote for a single issue.
But generally, they have little understanding of the parties'
platforms and aren't all that interested in policy. Republicans
understand this and try their hardest to turn elections into
referendums on someone's character or on a single hot button
issue. Meanwhile, Democratic strategists spend all their time
tweaking the party's platform, trying to make every position
perfectly moderate. The fact is, there is more than enough
red meat in the progressive agenda to sell to America. So
rather than trying to jettison any position that isn't approved
of by over 50% of the country, Democrats need to spend a lot
more time on the art of politics, on framing and selective
emphasis. They need to spend less time studying Republican
positions and more time studying Republican strategy.
What the Democrats need to get better at is acting collectively to frame important debates. They need to appear confident at all times (even when they don't feel it) and be ready to go on the offensive immediately when new issues arise. That's the only way to set the terms of the debate. As I observed in a previous post:
What Republican strategists have learned is that when a party
speaks in unison, it has the power to define what is considered
reasonable in the eyes of the national media, and in turn, the
American public. Democrats, however, cannot seem to
internalize this idea. They approach politics as if the rules of
reasonability and civil discourse are immutable or have been
set by some neutral referee. When someone like Howard Dean
steps over this arbitrary line, Democrats join the GOP in
immediately calling "foul." When a Republican steps over the
line, however, more often than not his Republican colleagues act
collectively to move the line. Suddenly we find ourselves in a
debate over whether outing a CIA agent is actually a good
thing, or whether a law that has been on the books for three
decades and repeatedly reaffirmed by this President should
be violated. It doesn't matter what the consensus was five
minutes ago. Talking points that would have seemed totally
absurd days earlier suddenly become credible and reasonable,
and for no other reason than they are being repeated by a
chorus of Republican politicians, pundits, and bloggers. In this
way, the definition of "reasonable" can be changed dramatically
overnight.
9 Comments:
Really have enjoyed your bloggin' this week - very thoughtful stuff, all documented to an interesting set of links that contain facts and not just snark.
Great to see you "spread your wings" and express your views and reflections - most that come by this site are reading other blogs anyhow, so their isn't any reason to constantly link to the same limited set of blogs - sites that, for the most part, do notactually contribute anything to the dialog or points you are making.
You have some good analysis and compelling reason - I do believe, however, that we need to acknowledge that the Democrats have always been a "large tent." Clearly, "southern democrats" have supported very different agendas than the Democrats in Boston, New York, and the rest of urban America.
It will take a broad coalition of support to overcome the repug monopoly in the MSM and the vote fraud. Yes, we need to take dramatic stands, but we need to do so in ways that bring diverse people together.
The diversity in the repug party is just an illusion - doesn't even exist at all. I think you are right, however, Democrats stand for issues that most Americans will support.
Framing these issues and stressing agreement with these values and policies (i.e. healthcare for all, fiscal responsibility in the military, wages that allow working American's to raise families with some dignity) are the keys to success.
Great blog. However, as you have pointed to in previous blogs the media has a Republican bias. To me the typical news story goes like this:
-Headline: Republican says.....
-Many paragraphs detailing the Republican point of view.
-Small paragraph with opposing point of view (usually poorly written and not supported) with a disclaimer to nullify the point of view as having a bias.
-Restate Republican point of view.
With that being the typical MSM news I wonder how the Democrats can ever frame an issue no matter what they do.
Good thoughtful commentary.
Do you remember this particular bit of insightful analysis
republican_nemesis
AL,
Not that this is your mistake, but to quibble with Waldman's post, MLK absolutely was considered weak by more militant black leaders such as Malcolm X and the black panthers. MLK was seen -- particularly by the mid-60s as something as a moderate or even conservative voice among civil rights leaders. His non-violent integrationist approach was criticized by violent separatists like X and the panthers.
For some reason the blogosphere seems to be having a tough time this week with historical analogies.
Not that this is your mistake, but to quibble with Waldman's post, MLK absolutely was considered weak by more militant black leaders such as Malcolm X and the black panthers.
I see your point, but in Waldman's defense, I think he meant that MLK was not seen as weak by the general public. He was confident and people could see he stood for something.
I understand that your point is about strategy, however it sounds (to me anyway) that you are advocating the Democrats abandon principle and embrace the tactics of the enemy. What's next, rigging elections and smear tactics? Selling favors to corporate financiers?
At least I will agree with you that Dems need to be coherent, despite their differences, and stand together. I just hope that if they do they will not put aside principle to do so.
I don't think A.L. (or Waldman, for that matter) means to suggest the abandonment of principles (substance) in favor of tactics (style). Rather, I think they are suggesting an emphasis on personal conviction, or at least some sort of evidence that there is a connection between personal feeling and good policy. It is really an Emersonian kind of suggestion -- that one should be "Man thinking," instead of "a thinker" -- which is to say, that all what we do will never succeed unless we do it in a manner that is true to ourselves, and reveal that there really is a fundamental connection between the inner life and the outward policy.
But maybe I'm getting too abstract about it. We can also simply say this: it is possible to both have the cake and eat it in this situation. Gore, by the way, is a good example of this -- he evinces great conviction, ethical sense, and personal dedication and fortitude, all the while presenting good policy.
Best,
JLB
I understand that your point is about strategy, however it sounds (to me anyway) that you are advocating the Democrats abandon principle and embrace the tactics of the enemy.
No, quite the opposite actually. I think the Dems would do better if they stuck to their principles and stopped contantly trying to embrace the illusive "center". In other words, I think they need to work on selling what they believe rather than changing what they believe.
I couldn't agree more.
The problem, in my view, is that many of the DC Democrats believe the Republican positions.
Speaking in unison to take a strong stand for something different would be like arguing with yourself.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home