Shaping the Issue Landscape
There's an interesting colloquoy developing, fed by Kevin Drum at Political Animal and Matt Yglesias over at TAPPED (one of the blogospheric omnivore's three perches today), warning that Democrats cannot simply assume that the 2006 elections will be "about" corruption, given the Bushies' determination to dwell on national security.
They're right, but let's remember some past lessons, positive and negative, about Democratic efforts to shape the issue landscape.
Throughout the 1980s, public opinion polls showed a situation similar to the one we've experienced during much of the Bush Era: big Democratic advantages on a wide array of bread-and-butter domestic issues, and Republican advantages on just a couple (national security and economic/fiscal management). In presidential elections, at least, the few issues Republicans dominated happened to be the ones that largely determined the outcome.
An even more exaggerated version of the same situation emerged prior to the 2002 midterm elections, with Republicans really dominating just one issue--national security
--and it turned out that issue trumped everything else.
Both in the presidential elections of the '80s, and in 2002, national Democrats basically sought to change the subject from "their" issues to "ours," and failed. Contrast that with the Clinton campaigns of 1992 and 1996, which sought to neutralize "their" issues and make the elections turn on "ours," which is ultimately what happened.
Arguably, the Kerry campaign of 2004 used the Clinton approach, but wound up reinforcing rather than neutralizing the Republican advantage on national security and on cultural issues.
I think the lessons are pretty clear. "Changing the subject" from areas of weakness almost never works. But if you do address those areas, it's pretty important to do so in a way that actually addresses the weaknesses. You can't just say whatever you feel like saying and figure that takes care of the problem (e.g., calling for immediate withdrawal from Iraq may or may not be the right thing for Democrats, but it certainly doesn't automatically eliminate the Democratic weakness on national security). The best recent example of that lesson was nicely supplied by the GOP last year, when it "addressed" the "Democratic issue" of Social Security in a way that just reminded people why they didn't trust Republicans on the subject to begin with.
This is, or should be, pretty elementary stuff, but the persistence of "change the subject" and "just say anything" views among Democrats on national security makes it worth repeating.
Mr. Kilgore, a suggestion to take a gander at mphine's post,
Wiretap Rope-a-Dope
and the comments on it; it's related to your post and should interest you.
January 13, 2006 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point. What's the short version of your suggestion for what Democrats should be saying about Iraq and national security, now that they've fallen into the Republicans' trap of ceasing to focus on how Bush misled us into war and engaged in the discussion about what to do now? I'm inclined to say they should shift the discussion of Iraq back to the past and away from the future. But that doesn't get at the broader national security question. Thoughts?
You're wrong, by the way, about Yglesias. Subbing for Marshall today over at TPM, he's got four perches. And I'll be honest: his posting over at TPM today reminded me of why I lament the move of his main individual blog from his eponymous one to here at the cafe. Much as I like it here, his move and Schmitt's took a little bit too much of the air out of the left blogosphere, as they both seemed to use the occasion to stop posting as much or as obsessively.
January 13, 2006 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
p.s. mho, mhpine shows some ability as a 'rocket scientist' on 'issue landscape,' though he denies this.
January 13, 2006 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
We Democrats can keep trying to chang the subject, but our more effective approach is to erode the Republican advantage in national defense. Highlight Iraq war veterans running as Dems. Point out the failures of the Rumsfield policy. Raise corruption as a defense failing (where is the continuing coverage of corrupt purchasing agents in Iraq, don't forget the Halliburton scandals).
My point is that the Democrats need to articulate why a Democratic administration is good for public safety. Don't drown in the wiretap story, spend much more time on the corrupt contracting in Iraq. Look into independent assessments of terrorism risk as related to the Iraq war. Make the issue that the REPUBLICANS are threatening our way of life.
January 13, 2006 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why not attack head on. The Republicans are deemed to be strong on Security and protecting America.
Whyever for? Look at their record. Why were the Republicans consistently given a pass on 9/11? Why are they given a pass on the blackout? On Katrina? Why doesn't anyone mention that no terrorism trial has resulted in a conviction? Why aren't we talking about how Al Quaeda is bigger, badder and better before, operating internationally and carrying out international terrorist operations at will? Why aren't we talking about how the 9/11 commission has handed out F's and D's? Why can't we talk about how, under George W. Bush, the worst terrorist incident in American history took place, and that he's done absolutely nothing to prevent or protect Americans from another one.
Why can't we just go out and argue that these guys are completely incompetent?
Think about it.
Take a leaf from Karl Rove's book. Remember him? The guy who always attacks his opponents strengths? Remember how he turned Ann Richards into a Lesbian, Al Gore into a serial liar, how he turned John Kerry into a coward and war criminal?
So why not do the same thing. Go after the Republican's apparent strength. Its bullshit, it doesn't hold up under examination. Drag it out, talk about it, put Bush's record for security under a microscope. Lets examine his real accomplishments and failures.
Let them defend their atrocious record of failure.
Of course, I'm increasingly inclined to give up on the Democratic party. So maybe I'm just talking for nothing.
January 13, 2006 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reagan did it for them. Not Goldwater, not Dole, not Bush I.
January 13, 2006 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
truly excellent point, jimpharo, however, while waiting for that charismatic to appear, one does not need to despair; rocket science has been proven to work amply enough: Clinton maintained a 2/3 approval rating all through an impeachment debate that was probably the biggest media distraction invented ever.
January 13, 2006 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
not to mention that Bush I went from 90% approval rating at one time to losing a bid for re-election.
January 13, 2006 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Inverted Yield Curve.... usually a precursor to a recession... Economists (redundant to call them Republican economists) say "but we are special this time"... didn't we hear that before? ... So, they may not be ahead on that front, either.
January 13, 2006 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, the issues landscape in which an election occurs probably matters less than we think, or want it to. Whereas hardcore Dems and hardcore Repubs regularly confirm their choices (which never change) based on the candidates' issue leanings, no one else does. Non or weakly affiliated partisans look much more closely at the personal characteristics of the candidates, and to the extent issues matter, it is in how those issues play up or down the candidates' popular or unpopular characteristics. Put another way, Bush has benefitted from the focus on national security because he is perceived as being a tough SOB (I'd agree with the second part) and decisive. Clinton benefitted from a focus on the economy because he was perceived to care about average Americans and their lot in life. The point is that it is impossible to know what issues will matter in 06 or 08 until we know who the candidates are. Pick the candidates who fit the issue environment, not the other way around, and you'll do better. That's, by the way, why we should have chosen Wes Clark in 04, but that's WAY off topic.
Whereas the wingnuts have a basic weakness in their, ahem, unusual relationship to facts and reality, progressives have a weakness in their unending fondness for policy wonkery. We WANT to discuss issues, which work, which don't, which to talk about and how, what solutions work for social problems, which don't. Blah, blah, blah. In fact, every time conservatives get in trouble they just whip out the "where's your solution" crap and we fall for it (sometimes, as with this "lobbying scandal," we just go ahead and do it to ourselves). The minute we do, the discussion becomes about policy, and swing voters use that as their cue to go back to sleep. We get bored making repeated points, and we are wary of talking in moral terms, about blame. Unfortunately, that's what holds people's attention.
January 13, 2006 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tagging onto this. At the STATE level (not the national level) Dems should go after slimey Republicans as crooks. The battle is to prevent the discussion from being "everyone does it." The answer must be, your guy Burns (DeLay, Doolittle, Ney, Reed, etc.) is a dirty crook. Here is the evidence. He's a crook, He's a crook, He's a crook! What did you do FOR the money Mr. Burns? Get ordinary citizens to try to get appointments with the Congressmen, then report the results and report how much "face time" they sold. Repeat it and repeat it and repeat it.
When they go to the "everyone does it" game pull out the Sunday School lessons about NOT going along with the gang.
Don't get distracted.
January 13, 2006 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Besides, we don't have a quick fix problem. We need a long range strategy that isn't hostage to day to day events. I say build a new vision of quality of life and a future of healthy children, healthy communities, healthy country and healthy world and you've got a foundation on which to build policies.
Fire the wonks and find a liberal Peggy Noonan.
January 13, 2006 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Certainly Democrats need to think through a good answer to the national security issues coming up in 2006.
But I think it's just false that national security will dominate the debate the way it has done in other elections since 9/11.
The 9/11 effect clearly has a limited shelf life. It can spook out Americans only so much for only so long. The clearest measure of its loss in potency is in the declining poll numbers of Bush and the Republicans generally. If 9/11 commanded its previous power, it's pretty inconceivable that those numbers would be so low. The public can factor Katrina and SS and corruption into its overall assessment of political performance only because it regards terrorism as of less import than before. It's a perfectly natural response: we are less filled with fear as the traumatic event recedes in time.
What I think that Democrats should argue is that Bush's Iraq adventure has actively damaged our national security. He's wasted our military strength on a NON-threat, instead of reserving it for REAL threats such as al Qaeda, Iran, and N Korea. The quagmire we have encountered in Iraq, the overstretching of our military, should make this seem eminently plausible to most Americans. Particularly as Iran becomes a nuclear threat, Bush's squandering of our military might will resonate with people.
January 13, 2006 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with you. Instead of shrinking back from the "national security" issue, I say we label them "the gang that couldn't spy straight" and do the political equivalent of pointing and laughing and making rude noises. They outed one of their own who had the best chance of actually finding where the WMDs were. Actually, they outed two, if you count the Pakistani they had working on a sting that they outed to get the media focus off Kerry after the Dem convention. They ignored what little data they had on Bin Laden, and misinterpreted (whether willfully or not) the data on Saddam's WMD.
Now we find out they've been vacuuming up telephone and interent communications for years, and the best they could come up with was some guy who wanted to take a blow-torch to the Brooklyn Bridge? Please.
Every time they bring it up, we reply with, "yeah, yet another great National Security moment from the The Gang That Couldn't Spy Straight. That's Bush and the Republicans for you."
January 13, 2006 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good, and we should stress over and over how much it costs. Use the $1 trillion or however many trillions. So what, if it may not be precisely accurate -- when do Republicans ever site costs accurately. If 1 or 2 trillion isn't correct, what is the correct figure? Put ALL your figures on the table boys. Show the American people the price tag. Who says we can't win independents, libertarians, and fiscal conservatives by demonstrating the costs of hysterical national security.
January 13, 2006 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ed,
Excellent think piece and followup comments. My 2 cents:
"Republicans are "rubber stamp" stooges for Bush policies.
The House, Senate and Executive branches, under Republican control, have allowed:
This process of shaping the message should result in a tidy set of winning memes and campaign position statements. Ammunition!
Never forget: Fighting Dems take 'em on. We will win!
January 13, 2006 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
assuming this refers to the blackout of Aug 03 how was it a political issue and especially how could it be laid the door of the GOP (the affected states had both Democrat and GOP governments not to mention that Canada was also affected)?
And the GOP most certainly was not given a pass on Hurricane Katrina. That storm and its ghastly aftermath is one of several reasons the GOP approval ratinsg are in the bargain basement today.
January 13, 2006 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
JonF responds:
>assuming this refers to the blackout of Aug 03 how was it a political issue and especially how could it be laid the door of the GOP (the affected states had both Democrat and GOP governments not to mention that Canada was also affected)? Hello? Reality check time. The August 03 blackout was the first test of the Homeland Security Apparatus. It was the first large scale crisis/emergency that America dealt with following 9/11. The result?The result? Bungling. Homeland Security f*cked it up completely. There was no coordination of emergency response, no activation of plans, no nothing. They sat there with their thumb up their asses. Two years after the events of 9/11, they had no plans, no ideas, no clues. We were lucky that it came in good weather, we were lucky that local responders were able to cope on a piecemeal fashion. But that was it, we were lucky. And we were only lucky, to have a non-lethal low intensity national emergency.Anyone with a brain who watched the Federal response during the August 03 blackout could have predicted what was going to happen during Katrina. I predicted it, not necessarily Katrina, but either a major hurricane striking the gulf coast, a volcano or earthquake on the west coast or a major terrorist attack.GOD SENT AMERICA A TRIAL RUN ON AUGUST 2003 AND THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION BLEW IT.>And the GOP most certainly was not given a pass on Hurricane Katrina. That storm and its ghastly aftermath is one of several reasons the GOP approval ratinsg are in the bargain basement today.Oh yes, they've had their pass on Katrina. The handling was so inept they had to take punishment. But they've got a free pass and we both know it.You think they don't have a pass? Think again. What about the emerging debate on race that came out of Katrina, the fact that black people and black areas of the city were worst hit? What about the plans to rebuild the city, and exclude black people and black neighborhoods? What about the utter mess which has been made of reconstruction? The fact that there are hundreds of thousands of Katrina refugees scattered around America? About the fact Katrina has fallen out of the media? That there's no investigation of what went wrong? What about the fact that despite Katrina, Bush's political power is so undiminished that he's going to shove a known perjurer like Sam Alito onto the Supreme Court? Think about it: A major city in America, one of the top five cities has been destroyed, as many as fifteen hundred Americans dead, six thousand still missing... and what are the consequences for Bush and the GOP? Some lousy polls. No one arrested, no one indicted, one fall guy resigns and is immediately shoved into a cushy job, no serious investigation, no reflection, and absolutelyl no diminishment of Bush's political power, no hesitation in Bush's agenda. Alito is a line item amnesiac, a bigot, a perjurer, a self dealer, he is absolutely bereft of human compassion, he is a right wing extremist, he all but announced his intention to repeal Roe vs Wade, and he espouses a theory of Presidential power which reduces congress to a rubber stamp and allows the President to disregard any law at his discretion. And this... man..., is going to be appointed to the Supreme Court for no better reason that this is Bush's will. What that tells me is that there has been absolutely no consequences and no meaningful damage to the GOP or Bush as a result of Katrina. The machine has not even hiccupped, it rolls on unhindered, grinding us all to bloody pulp.Unbelievable.
January 13, 2006 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Den Valdron writes
"Here is a thought for all you rocket scientists out there. Why not attack head on."
Why can't we just go out and argue that these guys are completely incompetent?
I just don't understand it when you say we need to be just like the Republicans.
The numbers of citizens turning out to vote has dramatically decreased. The majority of the populace is completely turned off by this mud slinging.
What is it your trying to accomplish? Through patience and reasoning, you might gain an ally, another voter to your cause.
I've used the illustration of people in the Lumber industry wanting to support their families and provide for their needs.
Think of all the industries that depend on the cutting of lumber. just on the construction side, carpenters, electricians, hardware, plumbers, the person at your local Home Improvement Center the list goes on and on, 1000's of jobs Every one trying to care for their families by working and receiving income to spend on needs
Another group completely opposite is the environmentalists, who also want to provide for their families, but they have genuine concerns about the environment and eco system.
But some have the opinion that we must attack the positon of the other to win.
Have you ever thought that if we addressed the safety net issues, Both sides win. If that lumber man has to cut so many trees to receive more income from his employer, because Healthcare for his family has gone up. He has to produce more to receive more. So what does he do? CUT MORE TREES.
But the environmentalists doesn't want him to cut more trees, and destroy habitat, and ruin the watershed.
But they both would benefit from having a secure safety net.
How do we achieve that, if all we've done is attack his concerns?
I realize this is simplistic, Sure we would like to see growth managed forests, or industry become better stewards. But in what time frame?
Lay off a lot of workers and provide no safety net?
"So why not do the same thing. Go after the Republican's apparent strength. Its bullshit, it doesn't hold up under examination. Drag it out, talk about it, put Bush's record for security under a microscope. Lets examine his real accomplishments and failures."
Who do you think your preaching to? I believe you. Unless a person has been in a cave, I think everyone in America knows about the accusations of manipulated war. Minds are made up already. What we need is not more combativeness but a realization that we are REALLY in the same boat. we have common needs and together we can put aside our differences and get Healthcare and Kitchen Table issues addressed.
In warfare don't you attack the weak side and not at his strong side. Just like Chess
Besisdes, Our war hero didn't beat perception
If we attack them and they attack us all we have is mutually assured destruction
Unless we put aside our differences and come together we destroy the concept of UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
January 13, 2006 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
>I just don't understand it when you say we need to be just like the Republicans.
In what? In the sense of having a clear message? Going on the attack instead of constantly passively being attacked and reviled? Actually supporting our constituencies and enacting policies that favour them?
>The numbers of citizens turning out to vote has dramatically decreased. The majority of the populace is completely turned off by this mud slinging.
Is it mud slinging that has turned people off? Or is it the isolation of political parties from their constituents? In particular, is the reason that a lot of Americans stay home instead of voting for a party that represents their interests, the fact that no party represents their interests?
I have to criticize the Democrats here, because they have repeatedly positioned themselves as the party for blacks, the party for minorities, the party for hispanics, the party for immigrants, the party for civil rights, the party for liberals... and they have consistently sold out or abandoned these constituencies at every turn. What's the Democratic party doine for blacks in America these days?
The attitude of the Democratic leadership is that these constituents have nowhere to turn and nowhere to go. Their votes are captive. Therefore, they can be ignored and Al Gore and John Kerry or whoever can go after the soccer moms, they can cleave to the middle of the road or the center right. How has that theory been working so far?
>What is it your trying to accomplish? Through patience and reasoning, you might gain an ally, another voter to your cause.
Uh huh. Meanwhile the right demonizes Liberals at every turn. It used to be that being a Liberal was something to be proud of, it was a statement of a position. Now being a Liberal is tantamount to being a child molester. In short, the right has so completely overtaken the dialogue that reason is an endangered commodity.
But, if that's your approach, you are welcome to it. I like reason and patience.
For the record, how has it been working for you so far?
>Who do you think your preaching to? I believe you. Unless a person has been in a cave, I think everyone in America knows about the accusations of manipulated war. Minds are made up already.
What are the statistics? 50% of the people still believe that Iraq was behind 9/11? 30% believe that wmd's were *actually found* in Iraq? How exactly do you propose to deal with that? Can you simply sit back and accept a full bore massive volume of misleading propaganda, and then look for common ground? There will be no common ground. You'll be demonized, despised and eventually, if trends continue, hung from a tree for being a stinking Liberal.
>What we need is not more combativeness but a realization that we are REALLY in the same boat. we have common needs and together we can put aside our differences and get Healthcare and Kitchen Table issues addressed.
And how has this been working for the Democrats so far? Let me see: Five straight election defeats, extremist Republicans in control of the Presidency, both houses of Congress and the Supreme Court.
I respect and admire your position. But unfortunately, I do not believe that it is realistic, and I do not believe that it will succeed. The common ground you seek does not exist. Your enemies are implacable and without moral foundation. Eschew combativeness, and they will not throw down their weapons. They will merely grin and fall upon you like hyeanas.
There are times when combativeness is the only reasonable response.
January 13, 2006 8:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Den Valdron is absolutely right. The GOP's strength in "fighting terrorism" is completely unwarranted, and will only go away if attack it mercilessly and repeatedly tell the American people why and how the Bushies have failed.
Here's a clue: They failed to protect us against al Qaeda before 9/11 because they were obsessed with Iraq. They failed to destroy al Qaeda after 9/11 because they were obsessed with Iraq. They still have no comprehensive plan to destroy al Qaeda because they're obsessed with Iraq. In fact, they have no idea how to destroy al Qaeda, since they're doing its recruiting for it by continuing to occupy Iraq.
9/11 was a terrible tragedy for America, but it should have been the death knell for al Qaeda, because it killed so many innocents--including Muslims. It was not their death knell because we invaded Iraq, and killed even more innocents ourselves--making bin Laden's case for him (that America is the Great Satan, and he is Islam's great protector), in a way he could never have made it for himself, AND taking out his #1 enemy, his main rival as the symbol of Arab resistence. Bush couldn't have done more to help out bin Laden after 9/11 if bin Laden had been advising Bush instead of Karl Rove.
Bush first ignored al Qaeda, and left us vulnerable to the worst attack on the Continental US since the War of 1812. Then he made things 1000 times worse by going off half-cocked after the wrong enemy. It was as if FDR had invaded Mexico to retaliate for Pearl Harbor, and turned his back on aiding Britain as well, because of the "Mexican threat."
People make a very good point when they say that Democratic activists focus too much on policy when they think about campaigning. Narrative is, indeed, far more important in reaching people. But narrative relates to policy. You attack the policy to disrupt their narrative, and replace it with our own.
For the GOP, and especially conservatives, their politics is all about establishing their identity--however fictional--and getting voters to identify with it. Demonizing liberals--along with a whole host of "undesireables" they identify with liberals--is integral to this politics.
This is why we should push the Chickenhawk meme every chance we get. It goes right to the core of discrediting their fantasy-based tough-guy identity. There is simply no way that people with actual military experience would have done what Bush/Cheney did. Nor would anyone who was comfortable with the fact that they had no military experience. (Such as myself.) These are the actions of insecure cowards and bullies--the absolute weakest of men. And we should lose no opportunity to point this out... or better yet, to demonstrate it by attacking them at every step, making them bluster, sputter and cry.
Hell, Bush can't even stand a few hecklers. Or a real, non-softball question. How can he possibly protect us against actual enemies? Answer: he can't. But the Dems are so busy acting even wimpier than him that nobody seems to notice.
And that's the crux of our problem.
January 14, 2006 7:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
January 14, 2006 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Even if Bush-type rapid nationalism is going to lead to suicidal ideas such as the other post here where people are discussing bombing (possibly with nukes) Iran? Also, the Democrats are proposing reforming the Patriot ACT, not eliminating it.
January 14, 2006 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I don't know it. Everyone (apart from die hard GOP fans) agrees that Katrina was a major black eye for the GOP and for the Preisdent in particular
Re: A major city in America, one of the top five cities has been destroyed
New Orleans may be a fabulous place but it's well down the list of cities. Not one of the top five.
Re: About the fact Katrina has fallen out of the media? It's been over four months. Things do fade from current news, especially given the short attention span of most people here. The very word "News" says it all.
Re: No one arrested, no one indicted,
Um, natural disasters are not illegal. Neither is incompetence. That's something that is punished at the polls, not in a courtroom.
Re: The machine has not even hiccupped, it rolls on unhindered, grinding us all to bloody pulp
Actually the GOP mcahine is sitting in a ditch with four flat tires and a dead battery. What have the Reopiblicans (and especially the Bush administration) accomplished this year? Nothing at all. Their showpiece agenda item, SS "reform" fell flat. "Rally Round The Flag" no long pulls in much support for the Iraq War. They have no ideas left, at least none they are willing to broach for fear of turning off even more voters.
January 15, 2006 5:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
The President has essentially announced that he is above the law and is undertaking warrantless spying in violation of FISA.
The President has announced that certain discussions of Iraq are now off limits and essentiallyl treason.
On other threads here, people are discussing the necessity of bombing the hell out of Iran.
As nearly as I can tell, the President's and the Republican agenda is at full throttle. No one is talking about Katrina. It appears to be one more temporary scandal with no lasting effect on the Republicans.
I'd like to be wrong on this... but I'm not.
January 15, 2006 7:20 AM | Reply | Permalink