Breach of Contract?
It seems beyond doubt that the basic partisan dynamic in the country right now is that voters are "finished with" the radical right (to borrow the memorable phrase from the most recent Democracy Corps strategy memo) but that the Republican collapse isn't matched, yet, by
an affirmative move toward the Democratic Party. Democrats aren't yet offering anything that captures the imagination of voters.
It's in that context that I've been trying to figure out what the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is doing this week by pitching a campaign around the idea that the Republicans "breached" the 1994 "Contract With America."
For years, Democrats have been in envious awe of the Contract, the clarity of its message, and its ability to cut through generic mistrust of politicians to establish a positive connection with voters. When Dems have attempted to produce our own version of the Contract -- a short list of clear, meaningful principles -- it has too often descended into the 61-point interest group agenda of last year's "New
Partnership for America's Future." So after almost a dozen years of trying to replicate the Contract, Democrats seem to have decided to embrace it.
This seems to me monumentally stupid for a half dozen reasons:
- Eleven years is a long time. Yes, to Washington Dems the Contract with America is still a living, breathing monster. Many of us lost our jobs because of it. (I didn't, but I would have been in line for a very cool job if Democrats had retained the Senate.) But does the Contract have any meaning for ordinary people after 11 years, three presidential elections, an impeachment, Sept. 11, a war, etc.? I'm open to hearing about poll numbers that indicate otherwise, but I suspect the answer is no.
- This seems almost too banal to point out, but if you're going to excoriate someone for breaking a contract, it would help if you support the contract in the first place. The Contract was a weird mix of procedural reforms that should never have been controversial (ban proxy voting in House committees, require commitee meetings to be public) and very substantive changes (supermajority requirement for tax increases, balanced budget, no U.S. troops under U.N. Command, etc.) Many of the substantive changes have passed into law long ago (welfare reform, child tax credit, capital gains tax cut). Is the DCCC saying that Democrats endorse the remaining provisions of the Contract?
- It's obvious that the fad of George Lakoff and "framing" has finally come to an end in official Democratic circles. I'm a Lakoff critic, but it's too bad that the occasional good insights from that fad seem to have been forgotten in the predictable backlash. One is the idea that certain language will tend to "activate" the other side's frame. In this case, attacking the Republicans for breach of the "Contract with America" does little more than activate the positive frame of the Contract and its attitude of just-do-it, automatic accountability, and corrupt Democrats!
- The God-that-failed narrative, which holds that after ten years, the hopeful honesty of the Republican revolution somehow became corrupted by immersion in the swamp of Washington, has already been claimed by the right. Almost a year ago, Andrew Ferguson in the Weekly Standard was explaining away the Abramoff scandals: After ten years, he said, it was Washington that changed the Republicans rather than the other way around, and "stripped of its peculiar grossness, Abramoff's really is just another story of business as usual in the world of Washington lobbying." (I love that phrase, since "its peculiar grossness" -- gangland slayings, for example -- is kind of the whole thing.)
So are Democrats endorsing the idea that the Contract was a bright hope that faded? Are they the ones to restore the revolutionary hope? Just what are they saying?
* The whole breach-of-contract argument is internal and process-oriented. It's an insiders' argument to insiders. What does it have to do with war, economic security, global challenges, hurricanes and floods, etc. Yes, reform is a key theme and Democrats must embrace it, but not in a bloodless good-government way. It's got to be integrally connected to the things people care about in life, and in the non-political aspects of their life.
If Democrats expect to capitalize on the emerging scandals, indictments, chaos, and the President's unpopularity to nationalize a congressional election for the first time since 1994, they have to find one or two clear points, substantive points, that are our own and that would matter: universal health care, preparedness for future crises, economic security, bring the war in Iraq to an end -- something serious that people can grab onto. Talking about someone else's 11-year-old Contract is no substitute.
Comments (54)
I am not so naive as to believe that there is all-pluses-no-minuses solution to our current predicament. Take the Roberts nomination: opposing him might look tough, but risks alienating moderates; favoring him might look cooperative, but risks our being taken for patsies. Either tack would have been defensible. Instead, we do the worst possible thing: the leadership splits, and the Republicans and media use the positions of one side to beat up on the other side and vice versa.
There are two obvious responses to the DeLay and the general current Republican predicament: go after the Republicans on ethics and on policy substance. Probably some attack that links the two is best. Instead, we raise a nonissue that is premised on the notion that Republicans should be expected to be reformers with good policies. What are we doing?
September 29, 2005 9:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
if dems expect to "capitalize" (an unfortunate term, imho) on the r's woes, they better recognize that their credibility and overall perception is damn near as low as the r's... if one thing has become clear to me over the past nearly 5 years of bushco, it's that the dems are just as bankrupt, morally, corruption-wise, solid principle-wise, and every other-wise as the r's...
yes, the bald-faced effrontery, arrogance, unbridled cronyism, and power-madness that infests bushco has been so jaw-dropping that i started looking to the dems for salvation... not any more... watching bill and hillary wallow in hypocrisy, harry reid try to chart a middle course and ending up with no course, howard dean continue to speak the truth only to be smacked back into silence, and the dlc trying to out r the r's, i can no longer nourish false hope... i don't know where the light is going to come from but i'm pretty sure it ain't gonna be from the dems...
September 29, 2005 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
I instinctively and strongly disagree with you. I thought it was a great idea as soon as I saw it, as long as it is also followed up with optimist, positive ideas and promises.
Since I'm no expert, I will just through out my own thoughts and feelings for others to think on, use or toss.
You say 11 years is a long time, I say it's not. (Especially with Congressional mid-term voters, they skew older.) In my reading of polls over the last 11 years, I see the same swing/Independent voters involved in making tiny wins for George Bush and large majorities in Congress for the GOP as liked the whole Contract with America meme and the push behind it, the reason it resounded. Any change in attitudes that 9/11 affected, the other major catalyst, related to Bush, the presidency, and not Congress. The other issues remain the same.
The big win from Contract with America was such a shock to me and friends (and to Clinton who had good pollsters!) that I have always tried to figure it out. Clinton took it personally at first. He retained his approval rating, though. The yeah vote for Contract with America was a message about giving progressive Dems too much power to retain to the old 'big spending liberal Congress corrupt machine' ways. They liked Clinton, but they feared what would happen if he had all the old Dem machine around. One of the things in Contract with America that really resounded was the term limits promise, because it addressed the machine aspect.
All those people are still out there; they still fear that about Dems. That hasn't changed. That's the main reason Congressional Dems lose--it has little to do with foreign policy--the latter is the President. All of the talking heads like Rush still pound on that same drum; they wouldn't if it didn't resound. Aren't you aware of how much the idea of 'big spending liberal Dem Congress with crooked machine legislating local lives' is still pounded on by talk radio every day? They do it because it resounds with swings. You have to break that spell before they even listen to ideas.
You would gain by pointing out to them that they didn't get what they wanted from the GOP Congress and that they needn't fear a Dem majority just because of that, that they got what they feared worse from the GOP. Stressing it would break the spell of fear of a Dem Congress.
Putting it as a talking point right now also has the added benefit of taking away the DeLay "vast left-wing conspiracy is picking on me defense." It is positivist in a way: it's saying: no, look, we're not picking on him like he and his pals did on Clinton, it's all of them, they didn't keep their promises and vision, they've become what you feared from us.
That fear, that is what is keeping people from endorsing Dems as an alternative in recent polls. First you have to point out that the GOP has become what they feared, then you put out your own vision(s). Being as it's always a district-by-district fight with Congress, it may well be individual vision(s) that are necessary. A national Dem vision is about the federal offices.
September 29, 2005 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
One of the benefits of the Contract for America was that it converted local Congressional elections into a referendum on Congress. The Democrats of 1994 had failed to pass the Clinton's healthcare reform bill and were the height of arogance up to that time.
It would seem that some sort of equivalent for the Democrats would have two advantages. It would make the issue of honesty and competence one all Republicans have to defend. It is also clear that Democrats don't agree on Iraq and other issues by having a few salient policies the internal disagreement might be muted.
An aside one of the key architects of the Contract was a neighbor of my parents, a very nice man, who was both an ATT lobbiest and Gay. It may be for the Democrats to put together such a contract they need people are solely from the usual interest groups but straddle them.
September 29, 2005 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
That said, I do believe the Republicans in 1994 did succeed in disproving Tip O'Neill's notion that all politics is local. The Republicans that year did present a coherent message that Clinton was a failure and that the Congressional Democrats were corrupt, and that effort succeeded. If Democrats could emulate that strategy, they might have some success next year.
September 29, 2005 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
"It's in that context that I've been trying to figure out what the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is doing this week by pitching a campaign around the idea that the Republicans "breached" the 1994 "Contract With America."
It's not as complicated as you're making it out to be.
Saying your opponents have violated their own ideals and promises is not the same as endorsing those ideals.
Instead, it's an effective way of making the case that your opponents are corrupt hypocrites, which is a core element of the Democratic message in '06.
September 29, 2005 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Daniel,
I think that's a very good and important point.
I still see that in the polls; it's basically: Congress is a big windbag full of liars, bums and bloviators. The Contract with America addressed that and I think it caught many 'swinging' minds. Too many still think the Dems are potentially worse on this front, would do more damage, than the GOP. So pointing out that they failed is a good first step.
Related point: I think the main reason that, as Schmitt says:
voters are "finished with" the radical right (to borrow the memorable phrase from the most recent Democracy Corps strategy memo)
is stuff like the whole Schiavo thing, Congress wasting time trying to but into private matters and socially engineer. I think they still fear that the "liberals" will do this as well. That's one of the main reasons why they are not turning. It's 'a pox on both your houses.' And that won't change until Dems do something to counter that fear. The GOP talk radio machine knows this; that's why they are spinning Katrina reconstruction the way are. Just because people want a strong FEMA doesn't mean they don't remember what happened with the results of the Dem 'war on poverty.' Can't harp on that recent Pew poll enough that says 2/3 want the government to help the poor more, but suggests that liberals don't know how to do that.
September 29, 2005 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Aren't you aware of how much the idea of 'big spending liberal Dem Congress with crooked machine legislating local lives' is still pounded on by talk radio every day? They do it because it resounds with swings.
So a better way to change their minds is to remind them of the "good ole days" when Newt ran the show?
This seems absurd.
September 29, 2005 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
I long for the day in American politics when we don't have to hear "Clinton-era" or "Bush-era" again.
Dems spend way to much time trying to recapture the "glorious" Clinton years.
Those days are over. It's time for new ideas, new voices and new perspectives.
Let's stop with the old school crap and move on to something better. We finally have an opportunity to make progress, and we're going to remind everyone of the Contract?
Sigh...will the Democratic Management ever learn?
September 29, 2005 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
As I noted to a friend the other day, the republicans took out a contract on America, not with it. At least that's what it feels like at the moment. In saying that, I would offer that they haven't breached the contract, they've fulfilled it. Just not in the way that some Americans expected.
Given certain republicans' ties to organized crime that we're seeing exposed in the press this may be a good manner of describing what has gone on to the general public. It at least calls their "frame" into question. Certainly I agree with the writer, pounding on the republicans with the charge of corruption seems like a no-brainer to me. Democrats must be willing to call out republicans on a culture of corruption and offer a clear alternative, or if they fear being exposed with their their own hands in the til, be willing to step out of the way. There may soon be many "frustrated" progressives willing to take their place.
Lianne
September 29, 2005 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Last year when we were into the Kerry Edwards campaign, we were visited by a traveling group of "former (recovering)" Republicans who were supporting our candidates. They revealed under questioning that they were not registered Democrats, but were instead Independents. I concluded that they were supporting our position for the purpose of riding their party of some unwanted garbage, after which they return and rebuild their party around the basic principles that they really believe in. I suspect that the Republicans leaving their party today have the same outlook. They don't want to be Democrats, they just want a little help with house cleaning.
September 29, 2005 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
p.s. what comes to mind as an example of what swings fear from Dems is our short interchange on the mortgage thread.
I think the impression of a Dem Congress among many swings is that they might do something like try to "protect the ignorant" from risky mortgages with all kinds of new laws. They'd prefer to see Congress interested in making sure more are offering the "risk" of home ownership to the disavantaged.
Yeah, it's Lakoff framing all right, but there's got to be something behind the framing. :-)
September 29, 2005 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
It seems to me the Contract with America did two things very effectively.
- It streamlined the Republican PR machine around the distinct promises of the contract, so they had a very focused and targeted use of their resources.
- It allowed local candidates to simply tie themselves to the 'bigger agenda' and say little of anything about the local issues directly impacting the voters' lives. Even the most basic of Republican candidates could memorize the Contract and be fairly sure they would be successful.
Any thoughts, on the part of the Democratic party to develop a 'contract' will be met with snears of 'no new ideas', which in this case, would be pretty legit.Democrats have to come up with 3 or 4 issues and action plans that can be used by every candidate running next year. Not as a 'contract' but as a resounding belief/action statement the party will move forward on to provide real changes in people's lives.
By using the concept, but not the rhetoric, will will avoid some very obvious pitfalls.
September 29, 2005 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Any thoughts, on the part of the Democratic party to develop a 'contract' will be met with snears of 'no new ideas', which in this case, would be pretty legit.
Bryan, please don't take offense at this, because you know I do think you are politically astute. But this statement to me is so stunningly obvious that it's amazing you even had to type it, let alone that the DCCC is using it on their web site.
September 29, 2005 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Saying your opponents have violated their own ideals and promises is not the same as endorsing those ideals.
The issue is not endorsing their ideals.
Can't we make a case for their hypocrisy without resorting to reminding people of why they voted against Congressional Democrats in the first place?
September 29, 2005 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, the minority who are even following politics enough to know what the Contract With America is, are going to vote for the Dem anyways.
It's those numbskulls who make up the majority of America who really don't know what is going on at all, that we need to club over the head with a simple positive message.
What I advocate is a simple 2 column Right Thing / Wrong Thing approach, where we show examples of the wrong thing that republicans have done, and show examples of the right thing that democrats have done that correspond. And we could put in things on our agenda that we want to do as well. Although specific examples hold more water.
Then the overall, unified Democratic Party message, is appealing to voters "to do the right thing" and vote for xyz democrat.
Both voters doing the right thing and stating that Dems more than Republicans do the right thing.
The book and movie, "The Right Stuff", was a simple message but was popular. So I think "The Right Thing" is along the same lines, simple but powerful.
Particulary with all the scandals coming out as of late, we can capitalize on those. Capitalize on the handling of Katrina, the handling of the Iraq war, all the wrong things that have been done. Not to mention the many insults that have been done to environmental progress and other areas that have had progress rolled back.
I think environment should be on the list. 61 items is way too many, someone needs to set priorities and limit it to a dozen at most.
I think we need to advertise some areas that we take a stand to be in a grey area - abortion is the first one that comes to mind. Rather than a black or white issue, lets put "making abortion rare by increasing birth control" on the left column, "The Right Thing". Because it really is the right thing to take it seriously.
I think we might be able to sway some christian swing voters regarding showing "compassionate conservatism" to have failed, since povery is way up, etc. etc.
September 29, 2005 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
cscs:
Ouch.
Point taken.
September 29, 2005 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
"The issue is not endorsing their ideals."
Perhaps that's not your issue with the D-trip's thrust, but it's at least part of Mark's issue as written above.
September 29, 2005 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't mean for it to sting! I just can't believe we're discussing it, you know?
September 29, 2005 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
<span>I agree it is a little late to really make much of an impact regarding the broken contract with America, but I'm not opposed to getting the facts out there to the masses.
</span><span>I also agree that this tactic is in many ways a reactionary approach and that Democrats need a more proactive, self-defining approach, if they wish to again become more popular.
</span> <span>That being said I support groups like Campaign for America's Future and their efforts on the contract with America (http://capwiz.com/ourfuture/issues/alert/?alertid=8063871&typ
e=ME) but I realize this is only one half of a needed plan.</span>
September 29, 2005 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps that's not your issue with the D-trip's thrust, but it's at least part of Mark's issue as written above.
Not really. Schmitt said:
You said we can criticize without endorsing their ideals, but he's not seriously questioning or suggesting whether the Dems endorse the Contract. He's asking rhetorically.
Regardless, it's nothing to do with the point he's making.
The point is, why are we thinking of an elephant?
September 29, 2005 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I work in a light industrial setting with a lot of conservatives. Many of them sense that their party has given itself over to magical thinking. I am getting traction with statements like, "Democrats are practical minded people. We want what works."
For the first time in decades a prevailing sense is coming down of the GOP as wooly headed and corrupt. People don't want to hear about the City on the Hill. They want the city they live in not to fall apart. In other words, for the first time in a generation, Democrats can be the Party of Common Sense.
September 29, 2005 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's those numbskulls who make up the majority of America who really don't know what is going on at all, that we need to club over the head with a simple positive message.
The people you describe this way do not vote in mid-term elections.
While many mid-term election voters might not be as active as blogosphere denizens, they do do stuff like watch C-Span.
They also skew older, and include many retirees. Older people, even when not well-informed, well that brings up this old saw, which is popular because it tends to be true, as people gain life experience, meet different people, and experience the nuance of life:
Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has no heart; and
any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains.
Many of the type of people you describe do come out for presidential elections, and when they do, they often vote party line.
Mid-terms are a whole different kettle of fish. Sometimes, you might get a bigger turnout at mid-term if you have something big and flashy, oh, like "Contract with America."
September 29, 2005 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the impact the Contract With America had, directly, on the 1994 elections has been grossly overstated. It was released six weeks before the votes were cast, and by that time the Democrats were in deep trouble. Almost no one I know, Democrat or Republican, even remembers the thing. What it did do was give the Republicans a rallying point, a frame of reference. What were they about? They could look at that document and they knew. Organizations need things like that, which provide a foundation, and codify the principles which organizations (should) exist to serve.
Democrats looking for their own Contract are missing the point -- they see the overt PR aspects of it, but, cynically, don't see the deeper value such a document can add to the party. What Democrats need, first and foremost, isn't a contract with America but a contract with themselves, a statement of principles to which all Democrats can agree. Given the schism in the party that's going to be tough to do, but without it any "Contracts With America" that Dems sign will be just an electoral ploy, and I think will be torn apart by a media that is cynical itself, and at least a bit hostile to Democrats to begin with.
September 29, 2005 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Second, the Contract was in and of itself a gimmick. For football fans it was a flea flicker (for non-fans - quaterback hands off to the running back who runs a few feet and pitches the ball back to the quaterback who, ideally, throws the ball to a wide open receiver down field) - it only works about once a season. In this context a political season is about a century. Thus, the obvious: the Democrats do not need a contract.
What the Democrats do need is someone to distill ideas down to something cogent, brief, compelling and, most of all, persuassive in the sense that it connects to people. (If I had the answer to how to do this, obviously I would be posting that instead of this).
What they do not need is 61 various points and issues. The only people who read, consider, or are concerned with reading anything that long are people like us who read 5 million responses to a thread on a blog like this one. And frankly folks there just aren't that many of us.
Moreover, when you have 61 points in a list - it looks just like a list not a platform.
September 29, 2005 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The point is, why are we thinking of an elephant?"
Because the political saliency of pointing out the fact that Republicans are betraying their own principles, are breaking their own contract with the electorate that allowed them to take power, easily trumps the principle behind the Lakoff bromide.
September 29, 2005 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
After reading Mark's post and the comments here, I'm tempted to think that we Dems are a lost cause. Not that I am particularly critical of the post or any individual comments, but the overall impression after reading here is one of pessimism for our side. If we win the Congress in 2006 and the presidency in 2008, it will be because of the unique awfulness of the other side, not because of our sterling efforts.
September 29, 2005 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have no polling numbers to back me up, but I'd guess the average voter in this country doesn't know what was in the contract, never did, and probably doesn't even remember there was one. The reason behind Republican success isn't the contract, it's Reagan's simple message:
Government is too big . . .
Taxes are too high . . .
Our military is too weak . . .
And the Republicans are less corrupt and more efficient than the Democrats, so we'll fix the problem and they can't.
The American public swallowed this hook, line, and sinker. But they're beginning to realize it was all bait and switch. The Republicans have now proved themselves to be:
Corrupt
Incompetent
Fiscally irresponsible big spenders in love with pork and deficits
Most people probably still think they're better with defense, but Iraq is starting to destroy their image there too. They will get some credit for reducing taxes, but incompetent government, big spending, and big deficits are starting to concern the public.
What should the Democrats do. Promise the following:
An end to corruption as usual
Better management and efficiency
A government that is responsive to its citizens at home--and prepared to meet its citizens' needs in times of crisis.
Lower spending and modest taxes, but without huge deficits.
September 29, 2005 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the contract is brought up at all, it should be in the context of congratulating the Republicans on accomplishing their goals, as originally enuciated in the "Contract on America".
The Republicans built their majority on a foundation of slandering the Democrats and "big government" at every opportunity. The relentless Republican narrative of "liberal media bias" and "government always fails" etc., has been very effective propaganda. It has made "liberal" a dirty word.
Democrats need to understand that their first job is to tell the American people what the Republicans have been up to, for the last dozen years. Don't tell the American people that the Republicans have failed -- that just feeds the Republican uber-myth that all politicians and all government always fails -- tell the American people that the Republicans have succeeded! List all the bad things, which can reasonably be attributed to Republican policy.
The uber theme has to be that Republicans want something different from what Democrats (and a majority of the American people) want. Polls show a majority believe America is on the wrong track. Republicans deliberately put us on that track. Tell people that. And, tell people that Democrats want a different track! Duh!
If framing teaches us anything, it is that telling people that the Republicans have "failed" lets them off the hook and undermines the credibility of all politicians. Republicans succeeded, but they were not trying to do what would be good for most Americans -- they were trying to help out the very wealthy and giant, corrupt corporations! And, they succeeded.
September 29, 2005 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uh, artappraiser --
What exactly did happen with "the results of the Democrats' war on poverty"? I trust you're not referring to the substantial reduction in poverty.
September 29, 2005 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the notion that Democrats need to remind people of the 1994 election promises is ridiculous. Who remembers? More to the point, who cares? People expect politicians to break their promises, whether phrased as a "contract" or not.
That said, Democrats have every incentive to nationalize the election next year. George Bush and Tom DeLay should be stamped on to the forehead of every Republican running in every single race in the country. Not a day should go by when a Democratic candidate doesn't bring up George Bush's unpopular policies, corrupt government and incompetent management. This much I think most people agree on, so the real argument is just over what are the most effective tactics to make that happen.
September 29, 2005 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Profmarcus is getting knocked in the ratings for his comment, but he does reflect the feelings of a lot of Americans. Better for the Democrats to listen to this kind of criticism and figure out how to counter it than try to dismiss it out of hand.
Democrats, you gotta start doing the right things to change these opinions, not assuming they belong to right-wing nuts and therefore aren't worthy of respect. The voters you need won't respect you if you don't respect them.
September 29, 2005 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that these days most independants think that BOTH parties are EQUALLY doing the bidding of corporations, EQUALLY beholden to special interests, and EQUALLY a bunch of corrupt whores bought and paid for by Big Money.
The Dems might make some hay by making an effort to separate themselves from the widely held notion that all politicians in Washington are owned by special interest and dance at the end of strings held by those who stuff their campaign warchests. Corrupt accepters of bribes; bought-off pork-chefs, etc.
How much noise can Dems make about corruption amongst the Republicans, when they accept just as much lobbyist lubrication as the GOP does? Such is the perception, anyway...
September 29, 2005 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not that I am particularly critical of the post or any individual comments, but the overall impression after reading here is one of pessimism for our side. If we win the Congress in 2006 and the presidency in 2008, it will be because of the unique awfulness of the other side, not because of our sterling efforts.
That you can even consider the Dems winning Congress in 2006 makes you a wild-eyed optimist in my book. The ideological tilt is all wrong. Winning the presidency in 2008, yes, I think that's in the cards. Winning Congress back before figuring out how to appeal to rural voters? Not a very good chance at all.
September 29, 2005 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
That you can even consider the Dems winning Congress in 2006 makes you a wild-eyed optimist in my book
Yeah, Luigi, you're right. In my dreams. But I can dream, can't I? C'mon, sing with me.
September 29, 2005 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
What Americans have not liked in the past few years yet is the suggestion that anything at all should be taken away from them: their tax money, their god-given right to big SUVs, their right to consume 4 or 5 times what everyone else in the world is consuming, their big powerful military, their social security check, or--god forbid--their right to go into dangerous quantities of debt to purchase a five-bedroom McMansion and pour toxic chemicals on their lawns . . .
We deserve it all, guys. And the Republicans promise to give it all to us. The Dems, they're always such party poopers . . .
September 29, 2005 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
That statement is your party's problem. No matter how hard you try to hide it, that opinion just oozes out of every pore. As long as that is the way you approach the electorate, you wont win them over. Too many of your on-air talking heads believe this and it shows every time they pat us on the head and tell us how they'll make it all better if we just listen to the grown ups and do as we're told. Give the people something to vote FOR (whether you deliver it or not) and you'll get their vote (at least once).
September 29, 2005 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure whether I think it's smart that the DCCC is using this particular rhetorical tactic, but it seems to me they're at least thinking along the right lines. They're trying to deal with an important and difficult problem: how to nationalize the '06 Congressional elections.
There are three important issues:
We can't run 535 races about 535 personalities. We have to make it a single race about Republican policy and the Republican leadership that rules Congress. If we can do that, we can win.
September 29, 2005 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent point. They have had total control, the ability to pursue all their goals, and all we got is the bill. Some Republicans may act dismayed by their current situation, but this is the inevitable outcome of their policies: a higher concentration of wealth, decline of the middle class, skyrocketing medical costs and energy prices, a deteriorating environment, increased danger from terrorism, a quagmire in the Middle East. None of this really matters to Bushco. No matter how ignominious their departure from power may be, they'll get wealthier as we pay the debt. The Republicans should really be revealed as the ultimate carpetbaggers and scalliwags. This won't be too hard for the public to understand, especially now as all the scandals kick in and Halliburton et al begin to plunder in Katrina's wake.
September 29, 2005 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that criticizing the Contract with American is a huge waste of time. It's a stunt so typical of the modern Democratic Party. Newt Gingrich is gone and Bill Clinton is gone - forcing voters to remember ancient history is just a good way to put them to sleep. This will come off as just another lecture from the party of eggheaded, over-educated Yale graduates (who love gay marriage and government handouts).
I know we have to go negative, but there are much better ways to do it than attacking the freaking Contract with America. It's simple, in fact: Democrats simply need to tie Congress to the failed policies of George W. Bush. Why? Because the Administration policies that are currently failing will continue to fail, and those that are not yet failing will soon begin to fail. The President put the country in enormous danger on multiple fronts and if we can predict anything about the next two years, it's that we will keep heading in the wrong direction. So going negative ain't a problem. George Bush is a trainwreck, Congress helped him do it, and now we're in a world of shit. I mean...the Contract for America? Now? With Iraq and Katrian and the economy in the shitter? Talk about tone deaf.
The key for Democrats isn't ripping Republicans. They're doing a good enough job of that themselves. The key for Dems is crafting a half decent message about Democrats. I think seizing the mantle as the Party of Honesty and Integrity is a good start. It shows that Democrats believe in morality just as much as Republicans and it cuts against the notion that we are nothing more than handout-giving, homosexual-backing, Hollywood-loving hedonists. We need to let America know that we might disagree on some issues, but we won't steal from you and we won't lie to you. Just like it says in that...what do they call it? Oh yeah, the Bible.
After that, Dems need to focus on the economy. Americans are really starting to feel the pinch and if Dems can come up with five plausible ideas for kick starting the economy (or protecting people from economic disaster), they should make headway. Then it's just a matter of figuring out Iraq...and off we go.
September 29, 2005 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
By now, after the inevitable disaster of Republican policies--higher concentration of wealth, skyrocketing private and public debt, decline of the middle class, wage stagnation, skyrocketing medical costs and energy prices, increased danger from terrorism, a quagmire in the Middle East--even profmarcus should be able to observe the vast differences between the parties, but he doesn't!
And the repubs have shrewdly encouraged this un-nuanced way of thinking. Think of the "special interests" tag. The repubs use this misleading catchall to lump union workers and social service non-profits with their own trademark Enrons, Halliburtons, etc. When Arnold Schwarzenegger tried that "special interest" ploy in trying to cut pensions in CA, the nurses turned out in full uniform to let the public know precisely what tainted "special interest" group the gov was targeting. Likewise, Dems need to find some clear ways to explain the differences between parties and the magnitude of republicans' mismanagement.
September 29, 2005 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a good start, but you have to understand the subtleties. We don't mind "hand-out giving" just give to people who need it, and legally deserve it. We don't mind "backing" homosexuals, a homosexual deserves the same rights and protections under the law as a heterosexual (hint: 2 heterosexual men can't legally marry either). We love Hollywood too, we just don't take "policy" advice seriously from an actor just because they "played" one on tv.
September 29, 2005 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amen brother!!! (don't worry cscs, when a RedStater says that, it's a good thing)
September 29, 2005 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
This sounds to me like.... 'Our shampoo is better than yours'. Can the Dems say, 'Vote for us if you want less corruption'? The public is largely aware that politics = corruption. Any 'party' message that says, 'We aren't corrupt' will ring hollow. Individual politicians who have a reputation for incorrupatability might be able to pull that message off, but how many are there. Those politicians that do display incorruptability need to be promoted, but I don't think any Senator has that image (except McCain, but thats a different story) and there are many would-be-President Senators that have a vested interest in keeping any worthwhile competition out of the picture. They run the party! Only outsiders will ever be able to win the presidency, but outsiders aren't welcome, it seems.
September 29, 2005 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Artappraiser
Even here most people think of Congress as spineless and full of windbags. Part of the effort shoud be to ask, the Republicans controlled the entire government other than incompetence and corruption what did they achieve.
You mentioning of Schiavo is very clever. I think more Americans are bothered by that intervention by the government than anything Bush and crew have done.
September 29, 2005 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Purple State
I know you were saying it with some pain but I think you have hit upon one of our current political problems. Starting with at least Reagan Republicans have told us we can do everything.
The Democrats response to say no we can't has been a political killer. What needs to be done is to devise policies that reduce the scolding, the arguments for limitations while at the same time achieving the same ends.
September 29, 2005 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was being sarcastic, but it is a real problem, Daniel. It's related to the whole "why isn't Bush asking Americans to sacrifice during war" idea some Democrats keep harping on. The reason Bush isn't asking Americans to sacrifice is because Bush is no political dummy. He knows Americans don't want to sacrifice anything, so he's not gonna ask them to, even if it does make good policy sense. Same thing with global warming. Never be the bearer of bad news. Let the Dems do that . . . and just laugh at 'em.
Unfortunately, the bad policy decisions will eventually come back to harm us. But right now, Americans are getting what they deserve--they don't want to pay the bill and so the bills aren't getting paid (the debt keeps piling up in multiple ways). Maybe Katrina is a wake up call that our actions actually sometimes have consequences. I hope so. But I'm skeptical. I think the interest is accumulating and the principal isn't being paid. Some day, someone's gonna get nervous and call in the loans. And then things will get ugly. Really ugly, really fast.
September 29, 2005 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cream, you're probably right that it's like "my shampoo is better than yours" but most people think about politics just about as deeply as they think about shampoo. That's about the only way to sell things like shampoo--and that may be the only way to sell a politician. The people know the claim is probably hollow, but if you package it cool, they'll buy it for a while at least--until the next great shampoo comes along . . . or the old shampoo starts to bore them.
The anti-corruption platform is the oldest technique in politics, but it keeps working because politicians always get corrupt and eventually people get sick of 'em and decide it's time to try someone else, even if they figure that someone else really won't be much different. At some point, they're willing to give something new a try . . .
September 29, 2005 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see the phrase "the Republican Congress" anywhere near often enough. Every time you say "Congress", you should preface it with "Republican" or "Republican-controlled".
September 29, 2005 8:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I never post on blogs. But there's a first time for everything...
All this talk about campaign strategy is forgetting one thing: In the last election, Rove was able to make people worried about their kids. As we've seen with school boards, people get very irrational when it comes to that. That's all it took. Until the Dems can come up with something that causes people to vote with their (misguided) hearts and not their heads, they're screwed.
September 29, 2005 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
IMHO, the message we seek should be simple. I dont mind the analyses ad nauseam, but in the end, I hope the message, like all brilliant solutions, is powerful in its simplicity. "Breach of Contract" is not one of them, for the many reasons presented. And really, its just lame, ok?
Ronald Reagan won because he was a regular guy that everyone could relate to amidst the democratic (ideology) disintegration that existed in his time. The same thing is happening with conservatism. Perhaps we should take a lesson from history.
And even more importantly, the message must be understood by Joe Q. Public, who just wants some semblamce of order back in his life. He wants to know that America is still the land of opportunity, not opportunism. He wants to know that should a natural calamity befall him, he can expect help. While he totally rejects a communist state, he fears its opposite as well, and that is a fascist state. He wants to know that he can freely travel without having to fear the consequences of flashing an American passport. He wants to go to the polling booth reassured that his vote is sacred and will never be tampered with. He wants to know that the taxes he pays are fair and being used wisely. He wants for his children a truly prosperous future and not one which involves the slaughter of other countries' children.
Yes things do come to an end. It is universal law. Ideologies are not exempt from it. As with liberalism is the 70s, perhaps, it shall be the case with conservatism in this decade.
September 29, 2005 9:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
For the non-elderly population, poverty went down in the late 60s, too, becuase of very tight labor markets. That progress was erased in the 1970 recession.
September 30, 2005 6:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
dc
September 30, 2005 8:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Profmarcus is getting knocked in the ratings for his comment, but he does reflect the feelings of a lot of Americans. Better for the Democrats to listen to this kind of criticism and figure out how to counter it than try to dismiss it out of hand.
I can go to DKos to get a good sampling of lefty rants when I feel the need to see wassup on that front. (Hint: I've had my fill for a long long time; I think I have the picture.) Some of us use the ratings system here to try to keep a high signal-to-noise ratio. In my case, it has nothing to do with his opinion, it's about ranting rather than discussing. There's a distinct pattern here, not to mention one in Hidden Comments. Rants begat opposing rants beget trolls. I can think of no better use of the rating which is described as "Not Helpful."
October 1, 2005 8:04 PM | Reply | Permalink