(RE-promoted by SusanG. Must have been a server glitch.)
Yesterday, Markos revisits issues that have been central to our discussions here on political strategy - how do Democrats win in 2006? How do Democrats motivate the base? How do Democrats seize the initiative and brand the GOP while energizing the base?
Since November 2004, I have argued that a politics of contrast, what I label Lincoln 1860, a Fighting Dems approach - where Dems aim to label the GOP as extremist, corrupt and incompetent and Dems as fighters for their ideals. I have also argued that Dems should ignore the nonsensical "no positive agenda" blather you'll hear from the Media. Here is an example:
Robert Hirsch wonders where all the statesmen have gone. Ed Laliberte wishes politicians would stop bickering and start fixing the nation's ills. Diane Heller says everybody in Washington is corrupt or out of
touch.
"I don't see any great leaders on the horizon," says Heller, a Pleasant Valley, N.Y., real estate broker. These voters are not alone. More and more, Americans are frustrated with politics as usual in Washington, where incompetence, arrogance, corruption and mindless partisanship seem the norm rather than the exception _ a pox on both the Republican and Democratic parties.
Puhleeeeaze. These stories are printed EVERY election cycle. And every election cycle the GOP relentlessly and viciously attacks Dems with every possible insult. The GOP knows better than to pay attention to foolish political reporters who lazily write the same story every year. My view is that the strategy for Dems is to pound the Republicans relentlessly. With everything. Do we need some BS Dem Contract With America? For PR purposes sure. But keep the focus on the Republicans. Give a small target.
The target is the Rubber Stamp Republican Congress and Dems need to relentlessly, fearlessly, pitilessly attack it. Want to fire up the base - REALLY take off the gloves. Don't concern yourself with the"pox on both houses" voter or the "values" voter or other figments of pundits' imaginations. Show that Dems are fighters for THEIR values.
Matt Santos said it best - let Democrats be able to say:
"I'm proud to be a member of the Democratic Party."
More on the flip.
In December 2005, there was another special election in California - that one was in CD 48. Eugene wrote a very prescient
diary about it:
[T]he CA-48 experience shows some different, yet key points:
1. Immigration did not hurt Young's candidacy in any way.
2. A politics of contrast - Armando's Lincoln 1860 - approach can be of great use in these kinds of district.
3. CA-48 is very Republican, and very conservative. We were never likely to win there.
4. Republicans will not necessarily abandon their party for the Democrats out of anger with Bush.
. . . Clearly, in a district with 23% Democratic registration, the fact that Gore got 39% and Kerry 40% suggests something. One is that the district has 7% of voters who will vote for a Democratic presidential candidate but NOT a Democratic Congressional candidate. Why is that?
To my mind it can only be a politics of contrast. You have a district that is wealthy, suburban, cosmopolitan. They are not generally a bunch of Dobsonites (though they certainly exist there). And Gilchrist was unable to break 25%, which suggests a limited appeal for anti-immigrant paranoia. Instead you have a lot of fiscal conservatives and Reagan conservatives - and Reagan moderates - 7% of whom are not fond of Bush.
This then is a major lesson of CA-48. Those folks aren't going to vote for Democrats in Congressional races. But they MAY vote for Democrats in presidential races, provided that the Democrat contrasts himself or herself with the radical Republican. It won't be enough to win the district's votes. BUT it could be enough to hold down Republican vote totals as we rack up big majorities in our solid areas (LA, SF Bay Area) and win narrow majorities in the swing areas.
So a politics of contrast makes a lot of sense.
Buying into ignorant bigotry on immigration makes NO sense for Democrats. Democrats are better off letting Republicans fight amongst themselves over the issue. A politics of contrast means we cannot go in for bigotry or anti-immigrant b.s. It instead means we are a more responsible, more equitable, less paranoid, less racist party on that matter.
I think Eugene is wrong on one thing NOW - people WILL vote against the GOP because of Bush. The beauty of this approach is that, imo, it also motivates OUR base. I have said this many times. About Roe. And about the futile chase for values voters.
On Roe I said:
What is Balkin saying here? Simple. It requires an extreme judge fully out of the mainstream to overturn Roe. And such a judge will not be extreme just on Roe. He'll be extreme on Griswold. Extreme on the Commerce Clause. Extreme on Separation of Church and State. Extreme on the Fourth Amendment.
Who were the Justices who recently voted for overturning Roe? Scalia. Thomas. Rehnquist. That is the type of Justice who wants to overturn Roe.
But so what? you say. What does that have to do with the politics of Roe? This, Democrats can only be the Rational Party, the Moderate Party, the Sane Party if they stand firmly against the extremists. Given the feeling of the American People that Democrats don't stand for much imagine what they will think if Dems stop fighting for the right to privacy! Why then would a moderate voter look to Dems to protect them against the Extremism of the Republican Party?
In short, to give up on Roe is to throw away any notion the American People have left that Dems stand for anything. It is to rip apart the progressive wing of the Party and fracture Democrats in a way that was last seen when the civil rights laws were passed.
See, we have already had our split on privacy and abortion . Single issue anti-choice voters are Republicans. And they will never be anything else. The mistake that is made by Levinson is to assume that by putting abortion rights in play in the legislative arena this will automatically deliver all pro-choice voters to the Democrats. NOT IF THE DEMS ARE COMPLICIT IN DESTROYING THE WOMEN"S RIGHT TO CHOOSE! They will flock to those who will protect what they value. Dems giving up on Roe destroys the idea of Dems as protectors of women's rights. Those voters who suddenly find that the right to choose is in jeopardy are not likely to run to Democrats just as voters in 1856 and 1860 did not run to the Whigs and other politicians who sold out on slavery.
So let's consider the probable political effect of a Dem cavein on Roe -- (1) complete alienation of the progressive wing of the Party - bad. (2) Laws banning abortion in the South and other Red States - neutral for Dems politically. (3) No such laws in Blue States where Republicans will be permitted to be pro-choice - neutral for Dems.
On "values" voters, I said:
In an earlier diary I argued that Lincoln in 1860 is the guide for us. But, strictly speaking, this approach is not aimed at the NotSouth part of America, but rather is aimed at that part of America that is not radical, anti-science, anti-gay, or enamoured of the Radical Right Wing Agenda. Sure, this strategy would alienate a part of America. Coincidently, it will alienate a good part of the South. But, like Lincoln in 1860, I believe that Dems must present a stark choice for voters--in our case, the reactionary radicalism of the Right vs. the sensible enlightened policies of the Democrats.
The bottom line is this strategy is a fool's errand:
My take is decidedly different than that presented by Democracy Corps. Again the notion of the cultural divide as the great obstacle to Democratic electoral success rears its head. And yet, the idea that going to voters who went for Bush 4-1 in 2004 and expecting anything else seems strange to me. Are these swing voters?
What is the essence of the qualitative findings of the study? I would point to this:
With most voters expressing little understanding of the differences between Democrats and Republicans on . . . [substantive] issues, they felt it safe to assume that if a candidate was "right" on cultural issues . . . that candidate would also come closest to their views on these other issues.
I believe that finding is critical. But I think I take a different lesson from it than does Democracy Corps. While their prescription for a "change agenda" is, no doubt, right on the money. I of course agree with their apparent advocacy for a politics of contrast. But I think they see the cultural divide as something to be avoided. I think it something to highlight.
The Republican Party can fairly be labelled the Party of Dobson, called to heel by the Radical Right. In my estimation, voters who feel as described by the study are NOT fertile ground for our voters. We should NOT trim our social message on a fool's errand. If we get those voters, it will be because of other parts of our message, and trimming won't change their views on the social issues or make them forget where we stand.
We need to embrace proudly our commitment to civil rights, women's rights, economic justice, equal protection under the law, the right to privacy.
We are for these not because we are serving special interests. African-Americans are not special interests. Women are not special interests. The working class is not a special interest. These are Americans. Who deserve a fair shake.
We are for the Common Good and for doing the right thing. For being fair and being honest. Because that is the Democratic Way. And the American Way. We don't divide the country in segments or groups. We believe that ALL Americans are entitled to good, honest, competent government.
And the Bush years make clear that Republicans are not. They are beholden to one group, that has not only imposed its views on the Republican Party, but now will settle for nothing less than imposing their views on the entire country. We've seen how the Republicans govern - disastrously. We need to make sure the country understands this.
The country saw how Democrats governed in the 1990s.
So the question to be presented to the voters is clear - "Are you better of now than you were in the 1990s?"
The answer is clear. Democrats are the answer.
I betcha that message would motivate the base.
NOTE: I think people make too much of the turnout in the Busby race. I think we HAVE a problem, I always have. I just am not sure the Busby race is the strongest evidence for it.