Agreements, Disagreements and a Modest Suggestion
I'm trying to figure out where those of us involved in this discussion agree and where we may disagree.
Here's where I think we agree:
- Off Center is a great book and everyone should buy it.
- The basic thesis of the book is correct. One reason the GOP has been able to govern way to the right of public opinion-and get away with it-is because they have, in an aggressive disciplined way, changed the rules of the political game.
- When the good guys get back in power, they should seek to reform the system so that such abuses of democracy are much less possible in the future. And the Schmittian amendment: be ye not like them when ye take over. Many old (and now-broken) rules of the game had to do with relations of trust between and among players of the game. Once in power, the good guys should seek to rebuild those relations in some form, rather than use the GOP's own rules to crush them like they crushed the Democrats when they had the upper hand.
- We may all agree that the Hacker-Pierson thesis is not a Theory of Everything when it comes to Republican successes, but we may disagree on the extent to which it does explain those successes. Matt ascribes considerable importance to the national security issue and to control of the presidency. One might add cultural issues to this mix. These factors have aided and abetted the rise of the GOP machine, but Jacob and Paul seem reluctant to give them their due.
- And these factors are now helping bring the machine down. Iraq has blown a huge hole in the GOP's national security advantage. GOP rigidity on cultural issues is now provoking a backlash among moderate suburban and even exurban voters. Generally, Bush is now viewed as a dishonest screw-up, rather than Fearless Leader, and has become a political liability to Congressional Republicans. As a result, we are increasingly seeing real, not fake, disunity among Republicans whose leaders urge them to implement unpopular policies.
Moreover, while it is true that Democrats took a long time to catch on to how the rules of the game have changed, they are starting to "get it". The successful and unified resistance to Bush's Social Security privatization effort is Exhibit "A". Democrats have stopped rolling over when pushed by the GOP machine and have thereby increased the likelihood Republicans will suffer if they are associated with unpopular policies.
As Greg Anrig argues, the current GOP machine is dependent on a level of control and discipline that is very difficult to sustain in these circumstances. He raises the possibility that we are now witnessing the beginning of the end of that machine.
Jacob's and Paul's view seems much different. For them, it is more like the end of the beginning. Sure, there may be some GOP disunity, but it is-and will be--mostly fake. The Republicans have too many structural electoral advantages for the Democrats to have much chance of serious progress in 2006. The Forces of Darkness are still very, very strong-too strong.
Thank goodness they don't (yet) have the One Ring!
And, yet.....as Jacob and Paul themselves argue, in their own brief for long-term political reform that would break the back of the GOP machine:
"The Catch-22 is this: A big push back to the center must precede political reforms designed to produce a big push back to the center. We cannot expect to "bootstrap" reform-to pull ourselves up by our present constellation of political forces. We need to consider some of the possible sources of political momentum that don't begin with the introduction of reform from the top. Major reform of our political rules and institutions is likely to be the last step toward our destination, not the first."
Indeed. So how do get that "big push back to the center"? Precisely by taking advantage of the one real source of political momentum we have in the country today: the public's growing appetite for change and genuine dislike for GOP policies and practices. Channeling that is how we can make electoral progress which, in turn, will create conditions in which structural reform and re-changing the rules of the game actually become possible.
I don't at all disagree, however, that electoral progress will be hollow if it's just business as usual once the faces in office change. Changing the things that made the GOP machine possible will be crucial to long-term Democratic (and small-d democratic) progress. But first things first: throw the rascals out!
And it's not as if the difference between control of the Congress is gigantic. Only 15 seats in the House and 6 seats in the Senate.
This change is doable.
And then there is 2008. Again the difference in the electoral college has been miniscule.
Don't predict the sky is falling, at least not for many more years.
December 7, 2005 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does anyone have a read on when (or at what pace) the media will catch up to all this? I really thought that Katrina was a tipping point, where suddenly the press seemed to have less fear of the power players. Oz was revealed and all that, and perception of power is crucial to this group's hold on power . But now I'm not so sure. When I hear people like Mark talk about "the inability of Republicans to even remotely regain their footing" since the Social Security fiasco, I get this creepy feeling that they've been knocked down and are taking every last bit of the 10 count before getting back up.
The Republicans have had a really bad year, but it really doesn't matter if they have a really bad odd-numbered year, because it has yet to cost them a whole lot. Especially if you adhere to the notion that it's power and not ideology in the driver's seat. I agree with Matt that the conservatives tend to lack the policy-wonk level of intellectual curiosity (and he didn't call conservatives as such "not all that bright", that was conservative lawmakers), but that doesn't matter if the driving force is maintaining power.
Even if we take the lowest view of contemporary Republicans (corrupt, intellectually bankrupt powermongers), the one thing they do think deeply about -- because it's what they're in it for -- is winning elections. So when Ruy talks about "the public's growing appetite for change and genuine dislike for GOP policies and practices" as the key to reversing this, I don't know what he means. They didn't much like a lot of those policies and practices in 03 or 04 either, and here we are. We're all venting our respective spleens, and the public is all disaffected with the government at the precise moment in the electoral cycle that it doesn't matter at all. You don't think that they might put a little more effort into controlling the topics of conversation leading up to next year's elections?
December 7, 2005 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
And it's not as if the difference between control of the Congress is gigantic. daddy0298
The difference may be bigger than it first appears, though. Max Baucus is a lot more difficult to control than is Olympia Snowe.
December 7, 2005 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
<h2> Iraq has blown a huge hole in the GOP's national security advantage.... Generally, Bush is now viewed as a dishonest screw-up, rather than Fearless Leader, and has become a political liability to Congressional Republicans....But first things first: throw the rascals out!
Yes indeed Ruy which is why articles like this in today's WaPo, make my blood boil</h2>
December 7, 2005 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely right, Marcel. And the President has in fact regained his footing somewhat: the past two weeks have been less disastrous, and the announcement of the new strategy on Iraq appears to have given him a slight boost. Fox has him back up to 40 pct, from their 36 pct last month.
More troubling, not a single one of the major setbacks for Republicans over the course of the last year has coome as a result of Democratic initiatives. They have resulted from dumb GOP initiatives (Social Security reform), failures in war (Iraq), criminal prosecutions (DeLay, Plame), and acts of God (Katrina). The most the Democrats have been able to muster is inventive procedural stunts...and the Murtha speech. The latter may be the best blueprint for how to press an attack in '06.
December 7, 2005 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
This has been a great discussion. Lots of meaty stuff to chew on.
I mostly agree with your summation of the arguments and dynamics of the interaction of your views, and citing Matt's excellent post. However, your modest suggestion goes off-rail. I don't see how present public dissatisfaction and disgust with the Administration's and Republican's tactics and follies can be seen as anything but a lingering bad mood, that will lift for a while after a little purging at the polls next November, and, hopefully, a little good news out of Iraq.
Even continued bad news in Iraq won't shift the direction of GOP momentum significantly, though it would definitely slow it, and maybe modulate its nasty, bullying tone. But the ugly facts of our ongoing - and it will be ongoing - enmeshment in Iraq, and near calamitous deficits that will further slow if not stop or reverse the present slow growth in the economy (it's not picking up, only peaking), will plague Democrats as much or more than Republicans, because Democrats haven't unified around a philosophy, let alone program to produce real change. The bad mood will return soon enough.
My suggestion to Democrats is to "knock heads" in their own party to temper fractiousness - a tall order by itself, and align around a short, coherent agenda to address those ugly facts. Not too ambitious, just to the point. A realistic, practical plan to stop the run-away spending they have heretofore been complicit with; simple, specific measures to shore up, not "reform," Social Security; and a realistic, doable strategy for managing a gradual withdrawal of combat troops in Iraq.
Forget Medicare until a time, after modest gains in the Senate and House have been achieved, when serious discussion may begin about how to contain costs and s-l-o-w-l-y move toward an affordable and equitable form of national healthcare insurance.
Forget the incessant and mostly superfluous rebuttals and complaining against the Bush/Republican regime, and definitely the hysteria that comes from hard left media entities such as MoveOn.
In short, take advantage of the present bad mood by demonstrating a willingness and determination to do what what can be done, practically, politically, and then push and shove like hell to achieve it. That will surely break the Republican's iron grip. Not a sledge hammer hysterically swung, but a well-honed chisel carefully and determinedly positioned to chisel away at the joists and let the shaky, fragile superstructure of Republican domination fall on its own.
Not that I particularly like forsaking our traditional zealotry and factional wars - they have their merits. Just can it until we get back in the saddle...sort of.
December 7, 2005 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
An immodest suggestion:
Gingrich et al. won on their "Contract with America." How about a slogan contest for the Dems next fall?
I'll start of with my (admittedly kinda dumb) entry, "Challenge to Change."
Next...
December 7, 2005 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re: People get a huge charge out of the zealotry and factional wars though. At least here in DC, they don't feel complete without engaging in both.
On the other hand, I see some very good efforts being made to bring people with different perpectives together.
December 7, 2005 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re: Challenge to Change--------
Not dumb at all. I like it. Today I heard 'transformational development' from a Republican no less.
Well I'm generally good for new slogans. But they just pop up when I'm not bored. In any case, I may have to whip up my incalescence in order to come up with new ones. So bear with me for a few weeks.
December 7, 2005 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Republicans: Corruption, Cronyism, and Incompetence.
"Democrats come to Washington to make government work;
Republicans come to Washington to work the government."
Had enough? Vote Democratic on Nov. 7th
December 7, 2005 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
First let me say that I have voted mostly for Democrats for 40 years. I am liberal and PROUD of it. So here is my modest suggestion.
Three basic truths about politics: If we pin our hopes on "elected officials" to lead us out of the vast and unjust waste land they created, we will have a long, long wait. The only power we have is our voices, our money and our vote. The one thing absolutely true about government is that it responds to the "squeaky wheel".
So here is my suggestion. We need to "combine" all of us into a huge squeaky wheel and go after them all, Dems and Republicans, the Bush/Cheney's and the Lieberman/Hillary's. The key word here is combine. Blogs, activist groups, non-profits, individuals, Air America - all. I get solicitations galore asking for money. A partial list is DFA, WWF, ACLU, NARAL, DNC, DSCC, American Cancer Society, Alzheimers, etc. I can't possibly fund them all - no matter how worthy. Each of these groups have an interest, some a vested interest, in a government that invests in and respects people. A government that will invest in the environment, health, education, freedom, and justice for all instead of war and tax cuts for the super rich.
So getting on with my suggestion, I think ALL these groups need to declare a moratorium on their individual causes. They need to join forces to create the biggest and loudest squeaky wheel on the planet, prioritize the steps required to take our country back, and then let lose the squeaky wheel with a vengence. Then when I get 15 soliticitations all asking for money for the same thing, I can give much more than if I am trying to "spread the wealth". I can also write my 10 letters, make 15 phone calls, etc., and I can become a part of the cacophony demanding change. If we do it together, I know this works. We took on the National Guard at a State level. By combining voices that impacted a multitude of elected officials, we forced them to acquiese to our request. One lone voice in the winderness, gets lost. The power is with the masses, and we need to create a powerful, political mass. As we all know too well, the example of a powerful. political mass and what it can accomplish is the political fundamentalists joining forces with the religious fundamentalists and taking over our country. When dealing with your enemies, fight fire with fire. When dealing with your friends, lead by example.
Jimmy Carter's new book is all about the rabid right, and the fundamental change (for the worse) that they perpetrated on this country.
December 8, 2005 3:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
And just what will the GOP come up with next year that will regain their popularity with the voters? They won't even want to mention Social Security. There's no way their ideology will let them come up with a popular proposal on healthcare. They no longer are seen as masters of foreign policy. Their tax reform porposals were vague and wonkish and, where specific, more likely to outrage the middle class than excite it. They've milked gay marriage and other culture war issues to the last drop, and must be wary of blowback if they mount another Terri Schiavo fiasco. I just don't see that there's anything they can do that will get them back to where they were.
December 8, 2005 5:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Precisely by taking advantage of the one real source of political momentum we have in the country today: the public's growing appetite for change and genuine dislike for GOP policies and practices.
Which is precisely why we need to offer something much more than "Republican-lite."
We need an alternative, not people who try to be all things to all people.
Even in red states, I suspect Democrats are going to need to start explaining some of their votes on GOP party lines.
December 8, 2005 7:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Democrats need a simple concise slogan for 2006. In many years a slogan isn't all that important, ie. would a catchy slogan made any difference in 2000, I think not. But in times of transforming attitutes a slogan can nicely sum up the change that's in the wind. My votes:
"Government for the People"
or
"Government for the common good"
I think what voters are seeing laid bare by the events since Katrina is that the government no longer functions for "The People". In the past they were willing to belive that the Republicans policies would benifit then in some way. That's why it essential for the Dems to put forward a reform agenda and get back to basic populist policies.
December 8, 2005 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
In regard to the slogan contest, how about:
"Honesty, Integrity, Competence--Democrats"
December 8, 2005 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink