Truth To Power: Why the Republicans Kept Winning.

In the past, I've been accused of subscribing to 'myths' propagated by the Republican spin machine regarding the unfortunate trend amongst Democrats.  Well, according to longtime democratic campaign consultant/speechwriter Bob Shrum, I'm not just imagining this -- and it isn't just a myth. 

As a guest of NPR's On Point, Shrum -- a self-professed bleeding heart, hardcore liberal -- stated what he felt was the biggest problem with Democrats in general.  You guessed it: it was the inability of many Democratic candidates to speak their mind about issues.  Democrats too often stray away from themselves, he said, particularly when campaigning.  The biggest advantage Republicans had was that they were good at sharing their message and advancing items in their agenda, even when they knew some of those ideas would be seen as controversial.  In Shrum's view, Democrats did not have to be more Republican to win more votes.  They just had to stand up for what they believe, even in the face of political (and occasionally public) opposition. 

More specifically: "if the party doesn't stand for something more than a set of poll-tested programs and a carefully engineered set of tactics to win office, then we are likely to lose unless the Republicans hand us victory on a platter of indisputable failure or perceived economic crisis."

This is, of course, the problem I have with Hillary Clinton: she doesn't seem to stand for anything besides poll-tested programs and carefully-engineered tactics.  Now, there's nothing wrong with polling and science.  However, you have to seem that you are more significant than that in order to capture the enduring hearts and minds of the electorate. 

Friends of mine have claimed that the country has moved right.  I used to believe them, but I don't anymore.  An increasing number of polls have come out backing my assertion that the majority of the American public still holds many core liberal beliefs, especially when asked about non-social domestic issues.  It's not that the country has moved right; rather, it's that the right has (at least in recent years) articulated its vision more effectively than the left has.  What's more, some of the regressive social policies lodged firmly within today's Republican Party only lend an enhanced credence to the earnestness of their message.

In other words, even when they are completely wrong, or simply full of shit...the Republicans often sound more honest than the democrats do.  And in a climate where most Democrats seem content to be defensive and wait to exploit mistakes rather than going on the offensive, that might be all that it will take.

Would it really have been political suicide to deny funding to the war in Iraq?  Not if Democrats had been able to spin it properly -- or if they'd been willing to skip their recess over Memorial Day to present a bill.  Yes, they did basically cave to the veto threat.  I know why they caved.  I know why it made sense at the time.  But they haven't really communicated their reasoning to the American people very well.  It would have been more meaningful if they had made Bush veto a war funds bill before they passed one without benchmarks...but they didn't.  I'm not saying they aren't trying -- they are, in the face of a nearly unprecedented abuse of executive privilege.  It's just not working as quickly as the public would like, and it might not work at all before Bush leaves office. 

So if they can't get many of their policies though the wall of this administration, Democrats should return to articulate liberalism.   They have to say they are the party of the people -- and, beyond John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich, they have to at least look like they mean it.  Otherwise, the Democratic Party will continue upon a fitful slide into irrelevance.  It's hard for me to imagine a more tragic outcome than that.

links: digg this    del.icio.us    technorati    reddit