Memo to Democrats: You Can't Beat Something With Nothing

Great Debates
141

Minty: I’m not telling you what you believe in - I’m telling you what Democrats did. Speaking as one who was politically active during the Reagan administration, the Democrats were constantly on the anti-military side of things. They opposed military development of damned near everything, from cruise missiles to the MX missile to the B2 bomber.

It never used to be that way. The Democrats used to be just as credible as Republicans when it comes to the military, but since the McGovern campaign, they’ve been mainly confrontational on military matters. Sure, there’s the occasional Democratic hawk like Sam Nunn, but there is an entire wing of the party that is anti-military and/or pacifist, and they still have a lot of influence on policy.

142

Read RTFirefly’s excellent link from earlier on what Democrats need to do re: defense and foreign policy. If that does not satisfy your desire to complain about 20-year-old history, please start another thread. We’re discussing what the Democrats should do, not what they have done. Remember, we’re pissed off about the latter.

december: The 70% figure merely shows how effective the Republicans’ propaganda has been, even in the complete absence of factual support for an Iraq-al Qaeda link. Once again, you’ve merely highlighted the need for a coherent Democratic voice in opposition to disgusting Republican lies. Thanks for dropping by.

143

RTFirefly

Again, this is theoretically true (I myself disagree with the oft-expressed notion that “inclusion” or “tolerance” requires a party to include all viewpoints - to the contrary, a party has to stand for certain viewpoints to the exclusion of others - otherwise it’s just an old boys club). But as a practical matter, I think it will involve - and certainly be perceived as - a move to the left. I believe this is already happening, with the apparent ascension of Pelosi - one of the more liberal Democrats in congress - to minority leader.

All of which is not to say that such a strategy won’t work, BTW. I believe that the Dems are to the left of the country, but not necessarily by any more than the Repubs are to the right of the country. Time will tell.

John Corrado

I agree with your post overall. But I do believe that primaries tend to produce candidates who are at the extremes of the ideological spectrum. This because the center of the Democratic Party is to the left of the center of the country as a whole, and conversely for Republicans. Plus, primaries tend to have lower turnouts than elections, which gives an edge to the more motivated voters.

A mitigating factor is the “electability” issue. Many voters are concerned about how their candidate will fare in the general election and will overlook ideological purity on that basis. This is hightened on occasions - such as 1992 for the Democrats - when the party has been out of power for a long time.

I don’t recall at all your second quoted assertion, and I seem to remember otherwise.

Spavined Gelding

What is the meaning of this? It sounds as if you are trying to imply that conservatives on this board are cynically advising Democrats to do things damaging to their cause under the delusion that this will actually have a negative impact. This is silly.

In general, some people - e.g. you - seem to have the notion that this is a session of the Democratic Party Planning committee. It is not.

minty

What Sam said. It makes no difference what you claim to believe, or even what you really believe. What counts is what you do. If you consistently find reasons to oppose every tax cut and never propose any of your own, you can yell and scream that the real reason is this or that, but you will not get a reputation as being favorable to lower taxes. And the same goes for defence, as Sam points out, or for any other issue. What you personally believe - who knows. Or cares.

144

I already proposed a tax cut of my own, in this very thread. Interestingly, the right-wingers ignored it.

145

The Democrats’ reputation on defense matters is not ‘old news’. You only have to look as far back as the Department of Homeland Security, which has been held up during what is essentially wartime because the Democrats refuse to compromise on their pro-union position.

Or, you can point to Bonior and McDermott’s dog-and-pony show in Baghdad just a couple of months ago.

Or we could point to the Clinton administration’s neglect of the military, and the antagonism the between the Clinton administration and the military, due to such things as Clinton refusing to give soldiers in combat proper armor support in Somalia.

In fact, I can’t think of a single issue in my memory in which the Democrats came out supporting the military to a greater extent than Republicans.

And it’s not just the politicians. The overwhelmingly liberal campuses in America are hostile to the military. Many will not allow recruiting on campus, and won’t allow ROTC.

And it’s not just an American affliction. Leftists throughout the world tend to be hostile to their own militaries. Here in Canada, the Liberal government has gutted the military to such an incredible degree that it is barely able to function, and can’t meet its own NATO commitments. And just today I read that they are going to scale the military back even more.

The fact is, the Democrats lost the American people’s trust when it comes to defense, and for good reason. If you want it back, you’ll have to earn it. Just saying, “Hey, we aren’t like that any more” isn’t good enough. Prove it with actions. That means it’s going to take some time, but hey, that’s the hole the Democrats dug for themselves. Now you have to deal with it.

I’ll leave you with this letter from a liberal Professor, who wrote this with an Air Force Academy cadet sent him a polite request for information:

As long as the Democrats have guys like this hanging around, they’re going to have a hard time convincing the American people that they can be trusted to defend them.

146

Oh, and I forgot - we should also point to the behaviour of just about every liberal on the SDMB, who have been bitterly opposed to just about every tactic the Bush administration has undertaken in the war against terror. I wonder - now that Bush has attained unanimous support of the Security Council, and also set the tone for Saddam that this time the world is serious, are there any of Bush’s detractors around here will to admit that maybe they were wrong, and that a hawkish stance like Bush’s is the best way to get results from a dictator like Saddam?

I just watched Margaret Carlson on The Capital Gang admit that she was wrong, and that in hindsight it looks like Bush did everything almost exactly right, INCLUDING his original, unilateralist, belligerent stance, because those things were required to get the world to the point its at today, which offers the best hope for disarming Saddam WITHOUT war. Kudos to Margaret for admitting she was wrong, but I’m betting the next time such a situation arises, she’ll make the same mistakes all over again. And so will many other Democrats. Until Democrats stop making those mistakes, they will continue to face a skeptical electorate.

147

Sam, how 'bout you start a thread (or multiple threads) of your own on those subjects instead of continuing to hijack this one? Once again, we’re not after your vote (especially since you don’t even have one).

148

Gotta love watching someone here dig a hole for themselves, then when they can’t get out, simply assert that they’ve been hijacked and won’t answer any more…
But I’m an obliging fellow, so I’ll help try to put this puppy back on track.

There appear to be two assertions as to what the Democrats can rally around in an attempt to become viable. The liberal wing of the party wants to become vocal about liberal concerns. They feel (quite rightly) that they’ve been ignored by the national party organism for most if not all of the 90’s. They feel disaffected, and don’t feel like they have much reason to support the people offered by their party for election. If true, then this would mean that the candidates for the Democratic party went into Tuesday’s elections with one hand tied behind their back.

The competing assertion is that the Democrats have to find issues to adopt that appeal to the middle spectrum voter that also have appeal for the liberal wing. Proponents of this idea believe that the main trouble the Democrats have is that they haven’t been able to articulate replacement ideas for the failing liberal political positions that the elections of 1980 through 1994 showed were no longer a viable means of capturing sufficient votes for election nationwide. Instead, so the feeling goes, the Democrats have campaigned by trying to be “me-toos”, a rarely winning strategy.

In evaluating which of these competing solutions is likely to prove successful, I believe one should look at past American political history. Doing so shows, in my opinion, that the only time strong wing stances have national traction sufficient to support an election is when there is some traumatic situation which exists nationwide requiring bold action. An example, obviously, is the election of 1932, where the Depression forced the electorate from being quite cozy with the laissez-faire branch of the Republican party into rabid socialists, desiring nothing more than an administration that was willing to totally remake the way American government did business. Was there anything in 1928 that should have kept the same change from occurring? No, except that the electorate wasn’t ready for a sea-change in politics that year. Similar analogies can apply to the early-to-mid 60’s, the 1860 election, etc.

Usually, wing revolts fail miserably at the national level. 1972. 1984. 1964 (just to show that I’m not just harping on the left :wink: ). Other examples can be provided.

So the question is, is there something about the nation at present that would justify an attempt at boldly staking out some position well to one direction or the other of the middle ground?

Well, perhaps there is. September 11, 2001 has certainly caused some folk to be quite apprehensive in this country. I’m not sure of its lasting appeal to the electorate, but assume for the moment that it has some. It doesn’t augur well for a liberal shift to a personal-rights paramount position, the typical bastion of liberal politics. Quite the opposite; circling the wagons is always a conservative philosophy, and Democrats are hardly going to be able to articulate it as a national viewpoint for the party without quite thoroughly changing their stripes.

Which means, I submit, in the absence of, say, an environmental disaster such as came within 1/4" of occurring here in NW Ohio this last year, the Democrats are going to be better served by articulating strong positions of moderate viewpoint which nevertheless are intriguing to the liberal membership as well.

149

I have made my case multiple times that the conservatives in this thread who have shown up to whine "But you can’t be for that . . . " have nothing to contribute to the topic of a Democratic statement of principles. Once again, we’re not out to capture Republican votes, and I personally don’t give a damn how you react to the principles we’re talking about. I merely do not wish to turn this thread into a debate about the folly of the B2 bomber, the future shape of the military, the advisability of attacking Iraq, or any of a million other digressions. Start such a thread, and I will be more than happy to participate.

150

In keeping with Minty Green’s perfectly reasonable suggestion that Sam Stone haul his repeated highjack of this thread off to a new thread, I am starting a new thread on the proposition that Democrats are soft on national security, if the hamsters are willing. With that maybe we can get back to a discussion of whether the Democratic Party has any fundamental principles and what they might be.

151

It’s already been pointed out that the Democrats need a strong statement and a strong leader, but there’s something else just as important. The Democrats need to improve their rhetoric, and to start speaking in a way that weakens right-wing rhetoric.

The Republicans talk about gratuitous government waste and the need for smaller government. Democrats need to talk about gratuitous government waste and the need for better government.

Republicans talk about tax reform, which is right-wing-lingo for “let’s give rich people more money”. Democrats need to talk about tax reform - and mean that the tax code should be rewritten, but that those who are most able to pay taxes should continue to be the ones who pay taxes. In other words, Democrats need to support a rewriting of the tax-code that makes the code simpler, but the burden of taxation the same.

Republicans talk about the “death tax” and want to get rid of it. Democrats need to talk about the “death tax”, with the goal to alter it. Small business hates the tax, because a small family business can be put out of business by the tax, and not be passed on to Junior - So why not reform the tax to exempt small businesses, so long as Junior stays in business and doesn’t liquidate the assets? And as for Rich Boy, who lives off a large monetary inheritance - He still has to pay. The public doesn’t sympathize with Rich Boy, anyway.

The Democrats need a clear position and need to express that position in a convincing way, a way that weakens Republican rhetoric, while at the same time staying true to liberal values.

152

Good post, Stricker. The Republicans are apparently only comfortable talking about taxes in the abstract. When it gets down to the nitty gritty of who gets their taxes cut, they know that the public by and large opposes plans that make the greatest cuts in the highest brackets. Democrats can and should make this issue their own.

153

Again, a post warmly reassuring to this particular right-winger, who has great interest in success for conservative thought in the US.

[ul]
[li]Liberals want to win elections.[/li][li]Liberals need a majority of votes to win elections.[/li][li]Republican votes constitute a majority as of last Tuesday.[/li][li]Liberals don’t want Republican votes.[/li][/ul] Does anyone else see any contradictions in these terms?

I for one am not whining that “you can’t be for that.” I am whining that if you say you are for that, I and other voters won’t believe you, if by “that” you mean fiscal responsibility, a strong military, and other issues on which conservatives seem to have won more than once.

Your other problem is limitations on the Democrats’ ability to set the agenda. The question on whether or not you support military action against Iraq is not going to go away if Al Gore shouts, “Look over there! The environment needs us!” There is a strong and vocal pacifist, anti-military tendency in the Democratic party, and it is not going to shut up.

And reality has a nasty tendency to rear its head and force you into a position one way or another.

This was an election in which the issues foremost in voters’ minds were not ones on which the Democrats were automatically trusted. The economy, war in Iraq, terrorism and domestic security, are not slam dunks for liberals, unless they have credible alternatives to what Bush and Co. have proposed.

When you think of dramatic turnarounds in the US economy, you think of Reagan. When you think of military action against Iraq, you think of Bush Sr. The immediate reaction when you think of Democrats’ reaction to terrorism and domestic security, is that they are against it because it doesn’t have enough union pork. This is an alternative idea?

Feel free to come up with new ideas for Democrats if you like. Federal control of the health care system? Hilary’s Big Idea - it failed. The environment? Gore’s Big Idea (for a while) - it failed. Opposition to war? McGovern’s Big Idea - it failed. Higher taxes? Mondale’s Big Idea - it failed.

What do you have left - abortion? You already got what you want on that one, and those who want a change on the issue in either direction aren’t going to switch parties and don’t make up a majority.

What else is there?

Regards,
Shodan

154

My observation:

The Democratic Party is losing ground in the South, and it’s surely not because the party isn’t liberal enough.

If you want to have any voice at all, you must control the center. You cannot grow the party by narrowing its appeal.

The Republican Party at the moment controls the center. The great irony is that they are espousing programs which actually harm those centrist voters.

For example, they are espousing elimination of the capital gains tax, and permanent elimination of the estate tax. These two tax cuts benefit primarily the wealthy. The estate tax elimination benefits exclusively the wealthy, since the estate tax was scheduled to apply only to estates valued in excess of $1 million. Yet, by referring to these schemes generically as “tax cuts,” and by calling the Estate Tax the “death tax,” Republicans are able to appeal to the center. Meanwhile, the average middle class voter doesn’t understand that these “tax cuts” are harming him, that because of these tax cuts, he will carry a heavier share of the federal tax load.

What we Democrats need to do is not to retreat to the left (huge mistake) but to do a better job of informing centrist voters how they are being hoodwinked by Republicans.

155

Not at all. As spoke- has already pointed out, it is essential to capture the center of the voting public if you want to win nationwide. That means people whose vote could go either way. When I say we’re not out to capture Republican votes, I mean that we’re not after the votes of people like you and Trent Lott. We ain’t getting your vote, because your politics are anathema to us and vice versa. But we are out to get the votes of those people who could go either way.

But forget the center for a moment. The other way to win elections is to get your base excited enough to get off their asses and vote. Something like 40% of registered voters last week actually cast ballots, and the race nationwide was decided by a 1-2% margin.

So what happens if the Democrats formulate and deliver a message that increases turnout among their voters by a measly 10%? A blowout election win for the Democrats, that’s what happens. Trent Lott hangs his head in shame and slinks back to Mississippi. Dennis Hastert crawls back into whatever hole he was summoned from. Conservatives everywhere cry out “We wuz robbed!” and demand the head of Karl Rove on a pike. Karen Hughes’ publisher demands an accounting of her $1 million book advance.

Man, wouldn’t that be great?

156

Just a quick re-phrase of my thoughts:

If the policies of the Democrats don’t advance the interests of the majority of Americans, then the Democrats don’t deserve to be the majority party.

And if the policies of the Democratic Party do advance the interests of the majority of Americans, then we simply need to do a better job of articulating the reasons this is so.

I don’t think this requires the party to lurch either to the left or the right. It is more a question of winning the propaganda war. (And between talk radio and Fox News, we are getting killed on that front.)

157

The other thanks was elections that the Democrats won. The Dems won in 1992, 1996, and 1998, when the message was centrist. The Dems lost in 1994, largely as a backlash agains the (leftist) universal health care.
The Dems also lost in 2000, when Gore inexplicably ran a populist, leftist campaign. Truly inexplicable in light of Gore’s past moderate politics.

One thing about this debate that’s bothering me - their appears to be a belief that there is nothing in the center that (a) is a coherent message and/or (b) will energize voters. Neither is true.

Sua

158

Sua, what aspects of Gore’s campaign seemed populist or leftist to you? I must have missed those debates and ads and interviews and position statements.

Daniel

159

Great wish fulfillment fantasy. I know, I’ve had similar ones myself, albeit with different wishes being fulfilled. The needle you have to thread there is finding such a message that A) Won’t motivate “go either way” voters to vote against you and B) Won’t motivate the Republican base to turn out in greater numbers to vote against you.

Italics mine. Ok, I see the contradiction here. Does anyone else?

160

Fine with me, but I would be interested in what the centrist issues would be that are going to move the Dems back into control. As I mentioned, a move to the center is going to be a move towards the right. Are you sure the number of centrists you pick up is going to make up for the number of leftists you lose?

Again I cite the example of Minnesota. Second highest voter turnout in our history, and we went Republican.

Wierd_Al_Einstein has already pointed out the problems with this scenario. You need an issue that is going to excite the groups who will tend Democratic and get them to vote, but not one that will excite the groups that tend Republican so they cancel you out.

As I mentioned, what will that issue be?

Regards,
Shodan