I know I'm coming rather late to this particular party, but I felt strongly enough about this to write my first diary. Despite a lot of passionately expressed diaries on the subject, I felt like there are some tactical reasons for Carville to back down that haven't been touched on. Without further ado, here is my letter to the Democratic Elite.
To Whom It May Concern;
On Nov. 10, 2006, James Carville was quoted as favoring the ouster of Howard Dean as Chairman of the DNC and replacing him with Harold Ford. The nominal reasoning was fundraising, Carville being of the opinion that Ford would inspire a level of giving that would dwarf Dean's efforts. Implicit in this is that Dean has been a failure as a fundraiser, a canard repeatedly floated by his opponents in the Democratic party when, by any measure, his fundraising has been a tremendous success.
Carville also indicated that he thought Dean's dedication to the long term building of party infrastructure may have cost us some seat pickups in the House. There is a certain craven dishonesty to this charge for two reasons: one, Dean did commit DNC money to the DSCC and DCCC; two, many of those closely contested seats would not have been contested at all had we listened to the advice of individuals like Carville. Such considerations aside, there are a raft of practical reasons for Carville NOT to voice such opinions in public. Doing so two days after the election is particularly galling.
To start with, this was a sweeping victory. Putting aside the spin of the media, which is still enthralled by the "incompetent, extreme liberals" narrative, and of the GOP, which has obvious reasons to downplay the election results, there's more than enough success to go around. In my opinion the 50 State Strategy of the DNC helped build statewide infrastructures, net and grassroots organizations helped flesh out the roster of candidates, and then the DSCC and DCCC provided money and expertise to capitalize on the wide challenge mounted by Democrats. Everyone had a part to play in this victory. The wisdom and benefit of the 50 State Strategy can be seen in the downticket victories we had, gaining nine state legislative bodies. This is our farm team for the future and vital to the long term success of the Democratic party. If you doubt me, read Ralph Reed's Active Faith, his (self serving) account of the rise to power of the religious conservative movement. There's a lot of chaff to sort from the wheat in the book, but his advice on starting local and patiently building your bench is spot-on.
To start shelling our own positions two days after the election is madness. Let me state this explicitly: The GOP would never do this. The GOP has never spun a victory of theirs as anything other than sweeping, no matter the margin. Why would we present this, absurdly, as some sort of failure? The GOP would never start carving each other up on national television after a victory. Have we so internalized the "circular firing squad" that we have to do this not only when we lose, but when we win? It's a simple question of professionalism. If we ever want the American public to take us seriously as a party we need to show that we take ourselves seriously. As a member of the Democratic media elite it's Carville's job to show us in a good light. This is a case of thinking of the good of the party. To do that we need to present a unified, dignified front. The GOP has this down pat.
I'm not a campaign consultant, but if I were asked what could have gone better, I'd stress first that it was a sweeping victory that met our wildest expectations. If forced to pick something out, I would talk about the GOP structural advantages and their sleazy techniques, like the deceptive and harassing robo-calling. Direct positive attention at the Democratic party, negative attention at the GOP. I'm just a voter though, so what do I know?
Lest you think I am trying to quash dissent, I'm not. But the time for it is NOT right after the election, and the place is NOT national television. Take it offline. Take it private. Hash these things out elsewhere. This election was just one battle and to win the ones ahead we're going to need to all pull together.
Speaking of all, let me just add a note about your roots. This has bearing here because Dean is beloved by the roots, particularly the netroots. Right now the netroots may only be a small fraction of the overall grassroots, but that is not going to be the situation going forward. More and more people organize and conduct more of their lives on-line now than in the past, and that trend is only going to increase. One day the grassroots will all be netroots. The netroots are passionate and they are passionate about Dean. Someone who inspires passion can ask for sacrifice, and Dean can do this. People will contribute time, money and effort that they can ill afford for him. In your heart, do you think Harold Ford can command that same passion? The Democratic party needs inspirational leaders. All the better if they can be put to pragmatic use within the party.
By attacking Dean in this way, Carville is attacking the netroots, make no mistake. This is madness. I can't recall the GOP ever slagging their own roots. They know where their bread is buttered. I am not saying that the netroots is some sort of linchpin for the entire edifice. It's not, it's just one tool. But have we got so many advantages, are we doing so well, that we can afford to throw any tool away?
I guess I'm a part of the netroots, gaining much of my news (particularly political) from the web. I never gave to political campaigns before 2004. In that cycle I gave on order a few thousand dollars. I now own a Democracy Bond, an idea that I think is just fantastic. I gave directly to a number of candidates through ActBlue. In support of Dean, and more importantly his vision, I am going to double my Democracy Bond and make a donation to the DNC now. So understand me when I say, if Dean is ousted, you will lose my donations. If Dean is ousted, I'm going to see it as the Democratic elite saying I am not needed or respected. I am already reluctant to give to the DSCC directly because of the debacle with Lamont and Lieberman. This isn't a threat, it's a statement of fact, and I am by no means alone in feeling this way. There are thousands of people like myself who have become active in the political process, to the Democratic party's benefit, in the last few years. Dr. Dean deserves more than a little credit for that.
I am not going to go any further into the dishonesty of trying to deprive the DNC under Dean's leadership of credit in our recent electoral victory. The purely pragmatic reasons I have given above - professionalism, the need for inspiring leaders, motivating your grassroots - are more than enough to justify muzzling Carville. If that can't be done, he should be repudiated or disavowed in no uncertain terms. This sort of foolishness needs to end if the Democrats hope to change the cultural bias against us. Changing that bias will lay the foundation for persistent victories in the future.
Respectfully,
Douglas L. McElroy