Playwright, filmmaker, and confidence-game aficionado David Mamet's
advice to Democrats? Take some poker lessons. Then maybe the party will learn the value of aggression and seizing initiative. It's a pretty good article, and one that should be of great interest to Kossacks if only because Mamet's poker strategies echo the attack and contrast strategy advocated by this blog and others. Nut graph in extended:
Control of the initiative is control of the battle. In the alley, at the poker table or in politics. One must raise. The American public chose Bush over Kerry in 2004. How, the undecided electorate rightly wondered, could one believe that Kerry would stand up for America when he could not stand up to Bush? A possible response to the Swift boat veterans would have been: "I served. He didn't. I didn't bring up the subject, but, if all George Bush has to show for his time in the Guard is a scrap of paper with some doodling on it, I say the man was a deserter."
This would have been a raise. Here the initiative has been seized, and the opponent must now fume and bluster and scream unfair. In combat, in politics, in poker, there is no certainty; there is only likelihood, and the likelihood is that aggression will prevail.
As a poker player myself, I think Mamet's lessons need a bit of refinement. While a raise is the strongest play in poker, but you have to be selective doing it. If you raise every hand, your opponent will know you're a habitual bluffer and pick a spot to take all your money. On the other hand, you can't be so passive that you only raise with your best hands. As Mamet says, you'll give your hand away. The table will fold around without a second thought if a supertight player come in for a big raise. In poker, it's not just aggression but selective aggression that's most effective. And like Mamet, I think the lessons derived from poker strategy are broadly applicable to politics.
During the last month of the election, I used the poker analogy myself in a blog post, likening Kerry to the "rock," the hyper-cautious poker player who goes in only with the best cards. Rocks are easy to read and fairly easy to run over. You've got to mix up your game, which Kerry didn't do until October. I think it's pretty clear that Kerry lost this election (if he did "actually" lose, of course) between the Democratic convention and the debates, when he was put on the defensive by the mendacious bullying of Rove and co. This can't happen in 2008.
So what's the lesson for Democrats? As Mamet counsels, we've got to escalate and raise, or we'll continue getting rolled over by the hyper-aggressive Repugs. But you've got to focus on the right opportunities, spots where you've got the better hand or where your opponent is weak. Right now, the Dems are being dealt strong hand after strong hand:
(1) Katrina shows Bush's weak hand. Not only has the federal response highlight the Administration's inveterate incompetence, the reconstruction efforts will provide more fodder for the Dems. Bush is now trying to use "good money to chase after bad," and and his reconstruction plan looks to be the grandest demonstration of Republican crony capitalism yet. This should be one of the Democrat's big themes: The Repubicans have been giving taxpayer handouts to their big contributors, plunging the country in debt, and with little to show for the money. The Democrats would use public funds to build a better America by strengthening the infrastructure and leveling the playing field. Will the Democrats get aggressive on this?
(2) Iraq. Again the Repugs have a weak hand, but this is trickier to play, mainly because voicing strong opposition to a war while simultaneously supporting the troops is kind of a tightrope walk. Tone is crucial. And I think the tactics advocated by Armando remain the best way to stay aggressive.
(3) Energy and National Security. Gas prices, record oil company profits, global warming, our energy dependence on corrupt Middle East regimes supporting terrorism with oil money -- there's a grand narrative here that illustrates Republican failure and Democratic values. Fareed Zakaria's piece a month back is a place to start. The Democrats need to pound this narrative instead of getting rolled over, as they did on the shameful energy bill.
(4) The Economy, Health Care, Education, etc. These are issues where Democrats have traditionally had a substantial edge. In poker, when you have the better hand (but not a monster hand), you have to bet and try to force your opponent to fold or pay to see more cards. While the Democratic congressional leadership is limited by their minority status, whomever the presidential candidate is must be unafraid to make strong bets to keep the Democratic advantage.
The Democratic strategy of playing not to lose isn't effective in any competitive arena in the long run. Football teams that always run up the middle the first two downs typically don't make bowl games. Poker players that only bet monster hands will have their wallets cleaned eventually. In every competitive arena, you've got to take some risks and make bold moves if you're looking to win.