From an
article in the International Herald Tribune, also referenced in a post earlier today on this site:
"'A Lieberman loss is very bad for Democrats; it says we are one dimension[sic] on Iraq,' says Peter Hart, a top Democratic polltaker."
Almost every time republicans talk to the media, whether asked or not, whether on point or not, they tend to try and communicate as many possible talking points, and tie it into a larger pattern, as they can.
Democrats, on the other hand, often engage in the political equivalent of talking about the weather. Or worse.
MORE
They will do the job of the media; providing analytical perspective that does not necessarily convey something relevant to democrats winning or clarifying/reinforcing an issue or fact. (And, as Hart illustrates, they will sometimes do the job of republicans as well, as discussed below.)
Similarly, they will often handicap the horse race, once again, taking media questioners too literally, or thinking they are somehow galvanizing the base. "We like our chances because the republicans are not popular," instead of explaining why they should win and showing the pattern of what the republicans do. (For an example of what is meant here, see this late posted comment).
They will tend to argue. This at least is an attempt in the right direction, but in politics, is often counterproductive.
Worse, they will often tend to conclude, rather than SHOW.
This idea of showing rather than telling is critical in politics: In a nutshell, democrats lose to republicans (and, increasingly, far right wing republicans who should be easily defeated) for three main reasons. 1) they argue about these fundamental reasons and tendencies such as those suggested here, coming up with all sorts of misfocused, peripheral and often far over intellectualized reasons as to what they need to do, and why they lose to far right wingers -- or worse, engage in excusing making and blaming others; 2) while republicans tend to sell, they tend to argue; and, 3) republicans tend to repeatedly show, democrats tend to conclude, or even tell people what they think, or should think.
There are a host of other tendencies exhibited when democrats speak to the media. Another one of the worst is when they say something that appears strong, to "galvanize the base," or "stand up to" the right, so to speak, that is strong in vitriole and conclusions, but not as strong in the point made (republicans often do the opposite, and so don't automatically make the average voter immediately tend to filter their own interpretations to defend their own formulations and choices).
They tend to do this because again, democrats often assume that the facts speak for the themselves. In politics, in particular, the opposite is true. People tend in politics to skew, filter, and interpret things to support what they have already decided. The tendencies by democrats, as appealing as some of the typical base appealing statements are to other democrats, tend to only heighten this response in the average voter, thus closing them off to the actual facts or perspectives -- as opposed to the right wing rhetoric and spin that they have been constantly bombarded with, and have implicitly bought.
In other words, democrats often speak to other democrats, rather than to a broader cross section of Americans. And they tend to get self righteous about it. More than once, by educated liberals (not democrats, but liberals, and certainly not most liberals, but enough to exhibit why this tends to occur) I have been accused of being a republican troll SOLELY for making this point: "democrats needs to communicate to a broader cross section of Americans." For this exact same point I have also been accused of "trying to push the republican playbook."
Being that winning in politics means getting more votes than the other side, thus effectively communicating with and reaching more people, this would be like a football game where one suggests we need to put the ball in the end zone more, and some players, getting it backwards, complain that this strategy helps the other team win.
It seems a bit far fetched, but it helps explain this tendency of democrats to think that everybody knows what they know, and to talk to other democrats rather than to a broader cross section of Americans.
This list could go on. But the main point of this piece is to make the point that when democrats speak to or through the media, under any auspices, they often are not fully cognizant of what that opportunity means, how to take advantage of it, and what to convey.
Once again, when it comes to strategy points, democrats are best sticking to the republican playbook, so to speak (if that is what it is), and communicating what needs to be communicated for voters to know what they need to know, and stop saying all the other incessant babble that they constantly engage in.
This reflects part of the need -- and is one of the many reasons for previous failure by democrats -- to stop allowing republicans to define democrats, republicans, and the issues (one recent example.)
Democrats need to continually illustrate the pattern by the right and far right of rhetoric not matching reality, of espousing the very principles that it constantly trumpets on the one hand, while misunderstanding or trampling upon them on the other, of constantly engaging in factual distortions and misleading rhetoric that either appeals to our worst biases and emotions, or to our best emotions but in an illogical and manipulative way. (Always, and here is the controversial clincher; in a way that suggests they are manipulating themselves as well. This allows people to be open to the suggestion that democrats are making, without engaging in the typical partisan response of skewing their own interpretation in order to defend their choices.)
This accomplishes several critical things, most particularly to establish the pattern so that each successive reiteration can reinforce it, and thus begin to correctly characterize the other side (the opposite of what is happening presently) while underming their misleading recitation of the issues, and:
Of course, first and foremose, CONSTANTLY reiterating and emphasizing the actual facts, and with far more success thereby.
So here is Peter Hart, doing what? Of course, as a pollster, maybe he feels inclined to say something clever; another problem with democrats. They often, invariably, seem without trying to appear clever, while republicans appear earnest (remember, IT'S NOT ABOUT HOW YOU PERCEIVE WHAT REPUBLICAHNS, CONSERVATIVES, AND THE INCREASINGLY DOMINANT FAR RIGHT CONSERVATIVES SAY, IT'S ABOUT HOW AVERAGE AMERICANS PERCEIVE IT, WHICH IS VERY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT PARTISAN DEMOCRATS OFTEN TEND TO THINK).
What Hart says takes the republican tendency of accomplishing several things with one statement, to a whole new level. Hart does accomplish several things with this one statement. It seems to be rare among democratic strategists and spokespeople, so this is to be commended.
The problem is, most of what Hart accomplishes is bad.
Many people in the real world, to some degree enabled by a media which continues to present this (the vitriol expressed, even though it does not come close to the far more extreme, yet somehow palatably packaged (see above) far right vitriol) believe that the left is knee jerk rabid anti Lieberman, and that this is what is wrong with them. No, many think Lieberman is a very likeable but now ineffective and far too status quo Senator, who accomodates not just republican policies but sometimes far right wing policies. But then again, aside from the fact that change is needed, how often has this case been made in the mainstream?
So here is Hart, who probably doesn't understand why many democrats don't approve of the job Lieberman is doing, and perhaps is a fan of Lieberman as well. And what does he do?
He makes an inane statement. "Lieberman Losing would be bad for democrats." Let's see, democrats have been geting clobbered by far right wing republicans. Congress is tilted ridiculously to the right. And a popular incumbent democratic Senator who is in many ways supportive of numerous conservative policies loses to someone that is not, and this is bad for democrats? Someone who I'd say represents the status quo, except Lieberman is worse than that. He represents the worst of it. Democrats in Congress who don't stand up to this administration (when even a couple of the relatively few moderate republicans in Congress are "trying" to do this) and one who in many ways has done the opposite.
Hart manages to take something very good, and spin it into something very bad.
The next part of the quote is not as poor; "politically, Iraq should be a debate about the Bush administration." but it is then followed by the similarly inane "A Lieberman defeat detracts from that."
Yes, politically, Iraq should be a debate about the Bush administration. Democrats need to make it one. But how does a Lieberman loss detract from that? Only because that is the way moderate democrats are self destructively spinning it. "Well," they self righteously respond, "anti Lieberman folks are just against this war, and his strong support of it." But anti Lieberman folks have a right to think this war was a mistake, mismanaged, and persisted in without an adequately flexible and creative response/approach, for far too long. Additionally, if it is about the Bush Administartion, and the poor way it has handled things and made foreign policy choices, why shouldn't Lieberman, who has supported these, be defeated?
And that is not the only reason that Lieberman is opposed by so many democrats. He just has not been effective, has supported numerous administration policies, almost all of which have been misguided, and frankly, given what this Congress has accomplished in the past several years, it is time to "throw the bums out," now as perhaps as much as ever in our history. And democratic strategists undermine this message but making the Lieberman thing into something it is not.
I hate to compare Lincoln Chafee with Lieberman, but it would be like republicans arguing that a Chafee loss (to a more staunch republican) would be bad for republicans. How ridiculous does that sound? That is almost how ridiculous what Hart said is, but is evidence once again of democrats allowing republican to set the agenda and define the terms: "A Lieberman loss is bad for democrats."
But Hart's comment is even worse for other reasons. For months now, democrats have allowed the media (and sometimes themselves) to falsely characterize this issue as one where democrats need to have a cohesive position on Iraq.
Why? That suggests that there is an easy answer on Iraq. There is not. In fact, the lack of an out is the precise reason to not go in the first place unless necessary. (And it is TIME to stop playing along with the republican and media spin that a vote for the resolution was a blank check to invade. It was not, nor was the military action in March of '03 even consistent with the resolution back in October of '02.)
Iraq is an issue to be debated. The real issue is making the right choices in the face of evolving circumstances, which the far right wing leadership has not done, again and again and again, on North Korea, on Iran in particular (who a few years ago WAS TRYING to help us and got rewarded by being labeled as part of the axis of evil several weeks later), on the Israeli Palestine conflict, on China, on Russia, on almost everywhere on the globe (and on domestic policy, on the Constitution, on secrecy, on fiscal responsibility, on the environment) and, of course, on Iraq. Over and over and over and over. That's what happens when America becomes led not by facts, but by rhetoric.
Yet democrats have not only allowed the media to criticize democrats for not having a coherent postion on Iraq, they themselves have often suggested it; instead of focusing on what Iraq is really about. And,instead of making it about the increasingly obvious perils of preset policy that utterly fails to adjust to the realities of the world. (The best example, of dozens, is of course the administration obsession with Iraq prior to 9/11, while it ignored al-Qaeda. Yet the same pattern has continued.) And that utterly fails to adjust to changing conditions and information.
So what does Hart do? He tops this off one better. He then takes this same quest for a coherent policy, and instead of steering away from it in ways that make the effective points, he first supports it by incorrectly turning anti Liebermanism into it, then he torpedoes it with wholly negative spin; "A Liberman loss would be bad for democrats."
The article reciting Hart's quote then follows with. "More than a few democrats think Hart is right." But only if democrats spin it this way.
In other words, I don't have a problem with a Democrat favoring our action in Iraq. Reasonable minds can disagree. And I agree that there is intolerance for this position on a lot of the blogs (including this one).
But democratic strategists spinning it this way is one of the worse things that can be done, in the face of the reality that people are going to have strong views about a voluntary war action that is getting American soldiers killed, possibly inspiring insurgency and therefore not assisting, and according to many experts at least, enabling terrorist cell recruitment.
Make the points intead. And one of the main points for Lieberman's unpopularity, is not only his position on the war. (Hillary Clinton has been incorrectly criticized, here and elsewhere, for wishiwashiness on Iraq, even viciously attacked by moveon.org in another example of democratic self destructiveness, when unless someone has a crystal ball or has talked to thousands of Iraqi leaders, insurgents and soldiers, they shouldn't presume so much). It is Lieberman's support for what has been by far the worst administration in modern history, and his support of the administration's handling of the Iraq action.
Additonally, while the article itself makes some good points and some inane points (that Lieberman's outrage at Clinton "distracted" republicans from impeachment in the 90's is a particularly good example of the latter), this rather rigid tendency to turn the Lieberman issue into a larger than it is vote on the war is also not productive.
"The war in Iraq is a deeply divisive issue, which makes it the most legitimate reason to mount a political challenge in a democracy. Yet Lieberman's defenders portray the Lamont insurgency as a 'jihad,' and one commentator suggested the 'future of civility in American politics is at stake.'"
These are not smart strategies either.
(But where is the media playing up the ridiculously more horrendous things written on popular far right wing (incorrectly characterized as right wing) blogs? Nowhere.)
Those assertions are of course by Lieberman supporters. But Lieberman detractors play into this as well, by also turning it into something larger than it is. (And frankly, there is a little bit of truth to the idea that Lieberman has been a bit villainized. But again, democrats' playing into this, on either side of the Lieberman discussion, does not help.) On the other hand, wanting fresh ideas after three terms itself is not exactly villainizing Lieberman. He hasn't done a good job. He has not used his leadership role to fight for the issues that matter. He is too supportive of poor administration policies: And this does not come from reviling the administration, as Bloomberg reporter Al Hunt and many others suggest, but from vehemently disagreeing with its far right wing, anti democratic, and increasingly anti constitutional, not to mention limited and overly simplistic world view of things. Etc. Also contrary to the assertions by Hunt and some others, three terms in the Senate does not mean that it is a travesty if someone loses, but that perhaps it is time to make way for some much needed change.
Instead of villainizing Lieberman, democrats need to make throwing out Congress a vote on the way all things, including Iraq, have been handled, as well as the accomodation of an administration slowly if unwittingly dismantling the pillars of democracy. (Yes, unwittingly. See the comments to that piece. Democrats, start addressing a larger audience). Business as usual just has not worked, particularly for democrats.
As far as Hart's apparently popular sentiment goes, it serves as just another example of democrats shooting themselves in the foot. On the one hand, there are the democrats calling for a cohesive strategy. And on the other, democrats then using examples of just such a cohesive strategy, to spin it negatively for democrats. "A Lieberman loss says we are one dimensional," was Hart's phrase. Nice job. Maybe the republicans can just stay home and watch football this autumn if democrats do their job for them. (As an aside, the statement is attributed to Peter Hart, "top democratic poll taker." Not to be confused with Peter Hart of FAIR: Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, which generally does a pretty good job, and whose points on the importance of responsibility in media reporting should get more exposure than they do.)