After the victory of Bush in 2004, Karl Rove was quoted as saying that his goal is the permanent Republican control of all three branches of the government. Although recent months have indicated that there's a growing distrust of the administration among Americans, I would like to suggest that while the right might be losing some battles, they are still winning the war. This likelihood of longterm victory has everything to do with current democratic strategy, but it is not necessarily the case that things cannot be otherwise.
More below the fold
Anyone who has played the game of chess knows that reactive moves are seldom good moves. For those who have a bit of experience with chess, the reasons for this are obvious. Chess is a game where you think many moves in advance. When you move you aren't simply seeking to accomplish some goal in the immediately present, but rather you're attempting to set up a scenerio in the future that will be to your advantage.
It is for this reason that reactive moves are seldom good choices. If, for instance, your opponent places pressure on your rook with a pawn, it's not necessarily the case that your best move is to get your rook out of the way. While a bishop is certainly a powerful piece in the scheme of the game, chances are that your opponent, if skilled, is seeking to distract your attention and that his real goal lies elsewhere. In focusing your attention on saving your rook, you aid your opponenent in accomplishing his future goals. For this reason, the best move is that move that turns a disadvantage into an advantage. Just as judo is the art of using your opponents force against him, much in the realm of political struggle consists in using your opponents own strengths against him.
Part of an effective chess strategy thus consists in controlling your opponents moves. If you can control how your opponent moves, if you can limit their range of choices, then you free yourself up for domination on the board. Although Rove has claimed that his goal is a permanent Republican majority, we shouldn't immediately assume that victory simply consists in controlling all three branches of the government. This, indeed, is the long term goal. However, the right is also victorious if they can control the situation in such a way that republican principles are being implemented regardless of whether Democrats or Republicans are in charge. That is, the right can win ideologically even if the labels of the people controlling the government are "democrat".
This is a paradox. How can the right still be victorious if Democrats are in charge? Doesn't this entail, by definition, that the right has lost? No, it doesn't. One of the curious features of language is that all statements call for a response. If I say to someone "I love you", I anticipate, I hope, that I will get the response "I love you too." The game of chess is similar. Each move calls for a counter-move. The question is will I engage in a reactive counter-move or will I engage in an affirmative counter-move. Here a reactive counter-move is a move anticipated by my opponent... A move that places me exactly where he wants me. An affirmative counter-move is a move that surprises my opponent, that wasn't anticipated by my opponent, and that puts me on the run.
In the field of politics, we can be triumphant over our opponent by strategizing what our opponents speak and how they speak it. That is, if we can define the terms and terrain of debate, then we triumph over our opponent even if we don't win a specific debate in the here and now. Put otherwise, Republicans can triumph over Democrats simply by defining the framework within which Democrats speak to the public. In this way, they are able to enact their policies regardless of whether it is Democrats enacting their policies or Republicans.
This phenomenon is what makes the strategy of the DLC so horribly mistaken. Noting that Republicans have been victorious in recent years, noting that Republican talking points appear to be the order of the day in the media, the DLC has concluded that they must look more like Republicans, more like the right, in order to regain power. Thus we have Hillary Clinton calling for investigations into the sexual content of video games, as a strategy designed to demonstrate that she has values. We have a DLC that is separating itself from the label "liberal" so it won't scare off the "average American voter." Further, we have the DLC striving to adopt more hawkish positions and to appeal more to patriotism. While patriotism is certainly not a bad thing, a patriotism that doesn't distinguish itself from Republican forms of patriotism concedes everything to the Republicans. In short, the DLC is allowing Republicans to define the field of discourse.
The problem here is two-fold. First, I hate to say it folks, but stereotypes matter. In adopting this strategy for presenting itself to the American public, the DLC Democrats render themselves indiscernable from Republicans. That is, it is no longer possible to distinguish between Republicans and Democrats as they both speak the same way. The problem is that if this occurs, Republicans will necessarily be victorious due to stereotypes average voters have about the difference between Republicans and Democrats. Here are some of those stereotypes:
Republicans:
- Strong on Defense
- Strong on Foreign Affairs
- Virtuous or Concerned About Values
- Greedy
- Promote Personal Responsibility
- Better for the Economy
- Lower Taxes
- Less Government Intervention
- Smaller Government
- Honest
- Pro-Christian
Democrats:
- Weak on Defense and Foreign Affairs
- Unconcerned with Values
- Promote Social Responsibility to the Detriment
of Personal Responsibility
- Higher Taxes
- Bad for the Economy
- Bigger Government
- More Government Intervention
- Dishonest
- Anti-Christian
All of us know that these stereotypes are untrue. All of us know that in many respects the situation is exactly the opposite. These cliches or stereotypes are what I refer to as "truisms", which are definitions accepted by a public as obvious or common sense, regardless of whether they know. They have the form "Everyone knows that Democrats..." However, the quality of being false never prevented anything from functioning effectively. This is exactly the problem with the DLC strategy.
Let us take it as axiomatic that the average American voter is generally uninformed as far as the news goes, and that they have these sorts of stereotypes lurking unconsciously in the back of their mind. Now, let us suppose that this voter, call him voter x, is confronted with two candidates who both speak in exactly the same way with only slight differences in nuance-- concocting an imaginary situation we'll refer to the candidates as "Kerry"(D) and "Bush"(R) --and they are faced with the question of how to choose between them. Well, at this point the unconscious stereotypes kick in and they say to themselves, "these two candidates are, for the most part, saying exactly the same thing, but Democrats are generally weak on defense, economy, and values, so despite the fact that he speaks to patriotism and has combat experience, and has hawkish proposals for protecting me from terrorism, I can't really trust him to follow through on these things. After all, Democrats are dishonest." Perhaps you'll see the problem. When democrats become indiscernable from Republicans, defeat lies in the wings by virtue of the stereotypes that characterize the collective American political unconscious. This simply cannot be a winning strategy.
In resolving to speak like Republicans, Democrats are adopting an essentially reactive strategy that plays right into the hands of Republicans. It wins either a) because it still allows Republicans to define the field of possibilities with regard to their own values, regardless of whether their implementing these policies, and b) because veritably insures that the real Republicans will consistently win over the "Republican-lites". Who wants an pale imitation when they can have the real deal?
A reactive political move is thus a move that leads us to talk like Republicans because it allows Republicans to define the issues of the day. As I said above, all speech calls for a response. This entails that we can be victorious even if we don't immediately win, by defining the field in which Republicans respond to us. It is for this reason that I think Dean was a victory for Democrats. Yes, I know that Dean did not win the nomination. But Dean did win in another way. By speaking up about the Iraq war and problems with Republicans (and conservative Democrats), he forced his opposition to respond and to defend themselves. Even if the response on the far right was highly negative, he got these issues out there in the media and before the American public and made them both viable positions and issues that have to be addressed. In doing so, he changed the field of debate and put Republicans on the defensive rather than the offensive. That is, Dean came as a surprise. And as a surprise he changed the topics of discussion and how those topics can be dealt with.
This is what Democrats need to be doing. They need to be getting their principles, their policies, out there, because if they aren't out there they don't exist at all in the American voters. If they don't exist in the minds of American voters, then it is Republicans who get to define policy according to their principles regardless of whether it's Democrats who are in charge. The only reason speaking progressive principles today seems like such a risky move is because we've allowed the Republicans to define the field of debate and haven't put any affirmative counter-statements out there. We must redeem words like "liberal" and progressive principles, because it's the only way we can achieve victory in the long term. When I suggest "by any means necessary", I mean that Rove is fighting for Republican domination regardless of whether it consists in getting actual Republicans in power or getting Democrats to endorse conservative principles. He fights by any means necessary, to win the fight in the long term. Our only hope is to get some courage and fortitude and start standing up for what we believe, even if we think it isn't popular with the American public. I think ultimately we'll be surprised should we choose to do this.