First, let me say that without doubt the Democratic Party does more by far to support our brave men and women in uniform than any other political entity. And many
individual "Fightin' Dems" are wonderful candidates on their own merits, having nothing to do with the fact they once wore a uniform.
But all "Fightin' Dems" are not created equal with some being the exact opposite of the popular projection. This national marketing campaign blindly promoting any Dem in uniform with no regard for the actual issues, the primary process or the local districts themselves is bulldozing over more-qualified candidates in some cases, while uniformly trampling core progressive values on a grand scale. In the "Fightin' Dem" madness currently sweeping the national landscape, Dems are fatally accepting a republican agenda for the key issues in 2006, putting real Democratic advancement in jeopardy.
Let's take a closer look at why we shouldn't be blindly fightin' for the "Fightin' Dems."
Just to be clear:
This is not an attack on any candidate being promoted as a "Fightin' Dem" or even "Fightin' Dem" looney Markos (though it may feel like it at times from his chair). It is however an attack on a half-baked national public relations scheme more akin to Russian Roulette than a targeted strategy to win seats. This ill-conceived movement asking us to "pull the trigger" so prematurely, months before we even have local democratic primaries, is loaded with candidates (in some cases) that are pro-life, pro-war, and pro-corporate special interests. We will encounter serious problems not-so-far down the road when cooler heads prevail, or more likely, when we start getting our teeth kicked in.
Wedge the other guy's base, not your own:
When Bill Clinton defeated veterans George H.W. Bush then Bob Dole, the era of required military service to serve the people was declared dead. Why is the Democratic Party trying to revive a dead era? Because there's a war on? Because they need a public relations face-lift? Stacking the House (and our party) with vets may sound like a good idea superficially, but what's the actual message? Is there any other kind of Democrat but a fighting one? Apparently not according to the "Fightin' Dems" brand. Forget education, jobs, privacy, community responsibility--our values and what we stand for; all we want now is 'boots on the ground' experience to combat Bush's war. The tactic looks cynical and reactionary--Why? Because it is. If many of us in the Democratic Party are turned off, what do you think swing voters (not to mention republicans) will think?
Swing voters:
If all we needed to take America back was an "officer and a gentleman" to sweep everyone from hippies to hawks off their feet, John Kerry would be President right now. And if the republicans didn't have a plan to undo every 'hero' someone places on a pedestal, John McCain wouldn't be a punchline.
The war:
Voters across the country fall somewhere between rabidly anti-war to rabidly hawkish and unfortunately so do the "Fightin' Dems." It's not unfortunate they happen to be individuals, it's unfortunate they've been swept up in this national marketing often times being projected as something they're not. One "fighting dem" I've noticed has a peace sign on her website demanding immediate withdrawal, another wants to send more troops, more money and supports invading other hostiles. While a temporarily deluded base may be willing to "project" their own position on what's being thrust upon them as a "Fightin' Dem" (like there is some other kind), when the madness is over, some of these recruits simply don't stand up.
Target practice:
Does anyone really think this tactic scares republicans? One little bit? This distraction from the issues is permission to swift boat the entire party with broad brush strokes. I'm doing it right now. Look how easy we've made it. You can't swift boat someone until some moron places them on a pedestal - Not only smugly above their republican opponent, but above the typical voter. That makes knocking someone down a peg or two not only welcome, but a spectator sport. If you don't think Frank Luntz has a national campaign ready to tailor to each of these "uniformed" Dems, open a window -- The fumes from the broad brush being used to paint the "Fightin' Dems" as our savior will be turned against us faster than John Kerry can change his mind.
Point of differention:
What is it? I can fight your war better? I have a uniform? I agree with Bush slightly less than my opponent? How far right do we go? This is not a point of differentiation. It's reinforcement of republican themes. I can see the "Fightin' Dem" rhetoric now. We must not fail. This mission is critical. Missteps along the way have been costly. We must do better, fight harder, fight smarter, be vigilant. As John Kerry painfully demonstrated, if there's no difference in a Bush speech or a "Fightin' Dem" position, why run at all? This isn't just Democratic Party public relations, it's bad public relations and a critical misstep in Iraq policy.
Think about the primaries! (Clinton versus Kerry):
Has anyone swept up in this madness considered the fact there are Democratic primaries under way? Consider this carefully: if a young Bill Clinton was facing a young John Kerry in a Democratic primary right now, the DCCC, Air America and DailyKos would be promoting that young John Kerry to undeserved "frontrunner" status with a young 'deserter' (not really) never being heard from again. My message to anyone not taking the time to actually look at each individual Democratic candidate (and some of these races have several, with MUCH more appealing prospects than the promoted "Fightin' Dem") stay the hell out of it until after the primary. You don't know what you're doing. You're screwing up local politics. And most of all, you're a carpetbagging moron and might as well be working for the republicans. Just as all politics are local, all national marketing campaigns are flawed.
Forget Katrina, there's a war on:
"Fightin' Dems" not only accepts the republican framing of the war as the most vital issue of our day, it endorses it. In Washington the war in Iraq may be the most important issue to "get Bush" but how does that translate to a family in NC, or AZ, or PA that can't buy food, afford healthcare or find a job? Triangulate. How do "Fightin' Dems" fighting Bush (or his war) help the average swing voter's bottom line? Politics 101: It's still the economy, Stupid.
Metaphorically speaking:
And what does "Fightin' Dems" even mean? I mean really mean? I've seen fresh from the front lines and ready to face Bush, among other things and worse. Are we serious? Do we still not get swing voters at all?
First, the supposed metaphorical appeal of a candidate in uniform (Dem or otherwise) is one of discipline, heroism and patriotism. Right? Or am I giving the DCCC too much credit here? If the idea is experience on foreign ground is what matters, we've already lost the swing voter that thinks in terms of values, not product benefits. If the message is Dems can wage republican wars more competently, then again John Kerry would be President if that even remotely worked.
So "Fightin' Dems" is a viable message to send swing voters if the goal here is to not only accept the republican framing that the war is the most important issue of 2006, but endorse the idea that only people with military backgrounds will be taken seriously in Congress.
Which as a matter of fact is just about exactly what the featured "Fightin' Dem" on Lou Dobbs said last night after first telling America no one was more qualifed to 'support our troops' than him.
"Well certainly, I'd like to first say that there's no one that would support the military and our servicemen and women in Iraq and Afghanistan more than someone such as myself that have served in Iraq.
And that and $3.50 will buy the Democratic Party a grande soy cappuccino.
Let me tell you what swing voters actually see in this giddy "Fightin' Dems" hysteria. 'Cause it aint pretty. Order takers, not following orders. Subordinates turning on their Commander in Chief. Whiners. Every "Fightin' Dem" is an insubordinate flip-flopper. See how easy that was? Did you really not see this coming? Learn from our mistakes. Stop repeating them.
While on the most superficial of levels a "Fightin' Dem" does accurately project the chickenhawk nature of his republican opponent (which worked so well in 2004), it actually does much more damage to the "Fightin' Dem" (and our party) than it does any opponent. "Look at me! I'm a turncoat. Swiftboat at will. I was for the war (even fought in it) before I was against it. But I can wage it better than my boss. And by the way, the other Dems aren't "Fightin' Dems" like me. I'm special. Better than you even."
And there's the real rub. In this cynical effort to reframe the elitist stereotypes of the Democratic Party, "Fightin' Dems" effectively enforces it. It also demonstrates a common criticism of the Democratic Party that it doesn't know what it stands for, and reinvents itself on whims. We are the war party now? We wage war better than anyone? What happened to the people's party? The party of regular working people, labor, education, healthcare, our environment, equality? CHOICE? Not to mention diplomacy and cooperation.
Solution:
If this "Fightin' Dems" madness must continue, here's what concerned progressives can do to take some slack out of the rope the Democratic Party is hanging itself with. Research! Don't believe the hype. Primaries are under way. Some campaigns have just begun. There are wonderful progressives talking about real issues in almost every primary where a "Fightin' Dem" is being promoted as if they've already won the nomination. These are good people that have been "in the trenches" here at home, in our schools, in our mills, in our unions, in our courts... some for decades longer than his or her "Fightin' Dem" primary opponent was in the military becoming disillusioned and still trying to decide whether to run as a Democrat or a republican.
Look at every candidate in every race, pick your favorite on the issues, and most importantly support them! Split your contributions, or just contribute to the General Election Fund so as not to undermine local favorites.
Let the people decide. The best thing we can do for a Blue 2006 is encourage strong primaries, with the best candidate in every race. Not just the best uniform.
My humble suggestions of a dozen deserving progressive candidates currently facing "Fightin' Dems" in Democratic primaries but not getting the same national attention:
No Dem Left Behind: Our Values, Our Frames, Our "Working Dems"
It's about fair play. Something supporters of the Democratic Party hold dear, even if the Party does not.