A New Strategy
I am not a fan of the Democrats; as I previously mentioned, I'm not even registered in any party these days. Still, in light of current events, I'm definitely supportive of any proactive gesture the Dems make. I don't see most of the current leadership as worthy of their posts, and even though I think a woman president would be as good as any of the past 40-some men we've had thus far, I'm not a fan of Hillary. Neither are quite a few others, including Molly Ivins (one of my favorite columnists-- who said Democrats/Progressives don't have a sense of humor?). A lot of it has to do with what Hillary, and a lot of other Dems can't seem to bring themselves to do these days: find their voices, backbones, and their principles.
Still, Senator Clinton just came out and made a good statement; it's about time someone said it-- perhaps too little, too late, but I'm glad someone had the guts to point out that the Republicans have been playing the fear card a little too often, and adding that Democrats and other groups shouldn't be afraid to speak up. Now let's see if she and her buddies in the Democratic Party actually follow through on this advice.
Of course, the boys on the other side of the aisle are rolling out their spiel about "emotion" v. "reason" and claiming that Hillary is an "angry" person. I don't have a problem with that: given everything Smirk and his party have been doing the last five years, I'd be (and am!) pretty angry too. But that schtick about the Democrats being angry and hysterical is wearing thin, and getting to be an old chestnut. But are the Democrats shrugging it off? No, instead, as the title of the article says, being labelled "angry" has the "Dems defensive."Part of it, of course, is sexism: women are emotional, women are angry, women are unreasonable, blah, blah, blah. This too is an old chestnut, and one best left in the 19th century, when the "women's sphere" ideally included home, hearth, family-- and nothing else.
But if Hillary were a man, there'd still be the same song about "anger." Check any right-wing blog or forum-- chances are you'll see commenters using words like "angry," "unhinged," "unreasonable," "emotional," and other choice words to describe anyone perceived to be on the Left, whether they are ultraliberal or moderate. It's all part of a strategy calculated to show up the Democrats as children and the Republicans as grownups. I discussed this last summer, and directed readers to a great piece, "The Republican Nemesis," by James Kroeger (the original link is lost, so I've re-linked again). If you didn't read it the first time around, I urge you to read it now. It's really something the party apparatus needs to read-- and heed. Sadly enough, I think Kroeger's advice is still very timely and relevant. The Republicans have mastered and manipulated the Corporate Media; the Democrats need to learn to do the same. Unfortunately much of the Corporate Media is tethered to the Right by their owners. This means the Democrats need to use what outlets they have, and that includes the blogosphere.
I really do think learning, understanding, and mastering emotional intelligence is something our recent candidates lacked. Gore, for all the fire he's shown the last couple of years, was a rather stiff candidate. His wife came off as far more passionate and engaged than he did. Kerry also came across as a stiff, upper-class patrician, falling into the trap the Republicans laid for him. While I agree that the elections of 2000 and 2004 were most likely rigged, it certainly didn't help that these lackluster candidates weren't able to muster enough support to win outright, instead of "losing" by the narrow margins that they did-- narrow enough that the Republicans were able to capture the White House (unfairly, I believe). Decisive elections don't allow for any games in the background to tilt things-- there's quite a few folks who still think the 1960 election was decided in Chicago by the Daley machine (and given how the big-city political machines operated from the 19th century through to the 1960s, who's to say they're wrong?).
Emotional intelligence isn't the only strategy the Democrats/Left/Progressives need to master; they also need to formulate principles they can stand behind. Unfortunately, of late, I haven't seen evidence that they can stick together. A good example is the recent "battle" over Alito-- there were 42 votes against him. If Reid had had any balls and real power, he would have insisted those 42 votes also be against cloture. Unfortunately, he let a few Senators wander off, and blew it. The big boys over in the offices, nooks, and crannies of Congress and the ties and cigars crowd at the central office need to start doing something different, or they're not going to have much of a party or a constituency left.
Ideally, the party should and can be a big tent; but realistically, it can't afford to do so. The Republicans blather that they are open to anyone, yet if you look at who they admit to their little inner circle, and who has the power to draft the platforms, determine the overall message, etc., it's a rather smallish group of believers. But through consistency, bullying, and political discipline, they issue memes, slogans, and other simple messages and parrot them over and over again. Sometimes they're just platitudes, sometimes they're ideological messages, sometimes they're half-truths or even outright lies. But as they've proved in recent years, if you say something over and over and over and over... soon you've got people repeating it and believing it.
The Democrats need to shape up and start doing the same. A good way to do so is to point out the obvious: the Republicans, for better or worse, are in charge. Chris Bowers exhorts everyone to do this, in "Our Message in 2006: Republicans Control Congress." I agree with him-- it's not shameful to say it, it's not a lie, and people need to understand that whatever garbage is happening these days is because of the Republicans. NOT the Democrats. NOT Clinton-- I'm sorry, guys, but he's been out of office for over five years now-- you can't keep blaming stuff on him anymore.
So as far as actual political strategy goes, I'd advise this:
1) maintain party discipline-- this doesn't mean voting in lockstep all the time, but it does mean on a few core issues, staying together or hanging separately.
2) developing and consistently fighting for a few central values. Economic parity, *real* health care reform, an equitable education system, environmental health; these are four issues that are winners, that have public support, yet no one is doing anything about them (at least no one with the political clout to achieve much!).
3) devising messages and staying on-topic-- this means not letting the Republicans, the White House, talk-show hosts and other talking heads throw red herrings and leading Democrats astray. It means hammering home the point, and sticking with the point, period. Yes, inside chambers, politics is fluid, and the art of the compromise is the craft to which good politicians aspire. But good politicians also know how to stay on-message, and win with them.
If the Democrats can follow this new strategy, or a similar one, maybe they'll get somewhere. If not, look for them to maintain minority status for awhile.
Still, Senator Clinton just came out and made a good statement; it's about time someone said it-- perhaps too little, too late, but I'm glad someone had the guts to point out that the Republicans have been playing the fear card a little too often, and adding that Democrats and other groups shouldn't be afraid to speak up. Now let's see if she and her buddies in the Democratic Party actually follow through on this advice.
Of course, the boys on the other side of the aisle are rolling out their spiel about "emotion" v. "reason" and claiming that Hillary is an "angry" person. I don't have a problem with that: given everything Smirk and his party have been doing the last five years, I'd be (and am!) pretty angry too. But that schtick about the Democrats being angry and hysterical is wearing thin, and getting to be an old chestnut. But are the Democrats shrugging it off? No, instead, as the title of the article says, being labelled "angry" has the "Dems defensive."Part of it, of course, is sexism: women are emotional, women are angry, women are unreasonable, blah, blah, blah. This too is an old chestnut, and one best left in the 19th century, when the "women's sphere" ideally included home, hearth, family-- and nothing else.
But if Hillary were a man, there'd still be the same song about "anger." Check any right-wing blog or forum-- chances are you'll see commenters using words like "angry," "unhinged," "unreasonable," "emotional," and other choice words to describe anyone perceived to be on the Left, whether they are ultraliberal or moderate. It's all part of a strategy calculated to show up the Democrats as children and the Republicans as grownups. I discussed this last summer, and directed readers to a great piece, "The Republican Nemesis," by James Kroeger (the original link is lost, so I've re-linked again). If you didn't read it the first time around, I urge you to read it now. It's really something the party apparatus needs to read-- and heed. Sadly enough, I think Kroeger's advice is still very timely and relevant. The Republicans have mastered and manipulated the Corporate Media; the Democrats need to learn to do the same. Unfortunately much of the Corporate Media is tethered to the Right by their owners. This means the Democrats need to use what outlets they have, and that includes the blogosphere.
I really do think learning, understanding, and mastering emotional intelligence is something our recent candidates lacked. Gore, for all the fire he's shown the last couple of years, was a rather stiff candidate. His wife came off as far more passionate and engaged than he did. Kerry also came across as a stiff, upper-class patrician, falling into the trap the Republicans laid for him. While I agree that the elections of 2000 and 2004 were most likely rigged, it certainly didn't help that these lackluster candidates weren't able to muster enough support to win outright, instead of "losing" by the narrow margins that they did-- narrow enough that the Republicans were able to capture the White House (unfairly, I believe). Decisive elections don't allow for any games in the background to tilt things-- there's quite a few folks who still think the 1960 election was decided in Chicago by the Daley machine (and given how the big-city political machines operated from the 19th century through to the 1960s, who's to say they're wrong?).
Emotional intelligence isn't the only strategy the Democrats/Left/Progressives need to master; they also need to formulate principles they can stand behind. Unfortunately, of late, I haven't seen evidence that they can stick together. A good example is the recent "battle" over Alito-- there were 42 votes against him. If Reid had had any balls and real power, he would have insisted those 42 votes also be against cloture. Unfortunately, he let a few Senators wander off, and blew it. The big boys over in the offices, nooks, and crannies of Congress and the ties and cigars crowd at the central office need to start doing something different, or they're not going to have much of a party or a constituency left.
Ideally, the party should and can be a big tent; but realistically, it can't afford to do so. The Republicans blather that they are open to anyone, yet if you look at who they admit to their little inner circle, and who has the power to draft the platforms, determine the overall message, etc., it's a rather smallish group of believers. But through consistency, bullying, and political discipline, they issue memes, slogans, and other simple messages and parrot them over and over again. Sometimes they're just platitudes, sometimes they're ideological messages, sometimes they're half-truths or even outright lies. But as they've proved in recent years, if you say something over and over and over and over... soon you've got people repeating it and believing it.
The Democrats need to shape up and start doing the same. A good way to do so is to point out the obvious: the Republicans, for better or worse, are in charge. Chris Bowers exhorts everyone to do this, in "Our Message in 2006: Republicans Control Congress." I agree with him-- it's not shameful to say it, it's not a lie, and people need to understand that whatever garbage is happening these days is because of the Republicans. NOT the Democrats. NOT Clinton-- I'm sorry, guys, but he's been out of office for over five years now-- you can't keep blaming stuff on him anymore.
So as far as actual political strategy goes, I'd advise this:
1) maintain party discipline-- this doesn't mean voting in lockstep all the time, but it does mean on a few core issues, staying together or hanging separately.
2) developing and consistently fighting for a few central values. Economic parity, *real* health care reform, an equitable education system, environmental health; these are four issues that are winners, that have public support, yet no one is doing anything about them (at least no one with the political clout to achieve much!).
3) devising messages and staying on-topic-- this means not letting the Republicans, the White House, talk-show hosts and other talking heads throw red herrings and leading Democrats astray. It means hammering home the point, and sticking with the point, period. Yes, inside chambers, politics is fluid, and the art of the compromise is the craft to which good politicians aspire. But good politicians also know how to stay on-message, and win with them.
If the Democrats can follow this new strategy, or a similar one, maybe they'll get somewhere. If not, look for them to maintain minority status for awhile.
posted by Mr. Sandman | 10:28 PM
<< Home