Well, here we are again. Another election over, another loss for the good guys. Now we'll start the hand-wringing and soul searching and the asking ourselves "why?" I wonder if this time we'll actually be willing to hear the answer?
Let's start with the most basic question: Why did we lose this election? Sure, the economy was bad, and that played a big part. But there is a bigger issue. In order to know why people lose elections you have to ask yourself a more fundamental question: What is an election?
The answer to that question is that an election, at its most basic level, is a popularity contest. People vote for the candidates they like better. If people like you, they will trust you, and if they trust you they will vote for you. Our problem is that too many people do not like -- and therefore do not trust -- Democrats.
So why not? I think there are several reasons.
Democrats are perceived as elitists. This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. Many people's image of a typical Democrat is someone with a graduate degree who drives a Volvo, listens to NPR, shops at Whole Foods, and likes to tell working class people what is best for them. We are seen as treating less "enlightened" people with condescension, and disapproving of their values and choices. Remember the backlash to then-candidate Obama's comment about people "clinging to guns and religion?" That statement was seen as evidence of Democrats' true colors. It may be unfair, it may be the product of Republican spin, but it's what a LOT of people believe. Democrats used to be the party of the working class; now we are seen by many as the party of the ruling class.
Democrats are perceived as too intellectual. Let's face it, nobody liked the smartest kid in class. And I think to a lot of people that's exactly how we come off. We continue to believe that a well-reasoned argument, especially one peppered with facts and statistics, can win the day, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. We never seem to miss an opportunity to say in six paragraphs what could be said in one sentence. And I think we are seen as talking down to those who are not smart enough to "get" what we're talking about.
Democrats are perceived as having trouble connecting. The day after the Democrats decisively recaptured the House in 2006, President George W. Bush held a press conference. He sauntered up to the podium, cast a surprised eye around the room, and said, "Why all the long faces?" It was a great moment of levity, a great human moment. He had been defeated, he knew had been defeated (a "whuppin" was how he put it), what was he going to say? When President Obama gave his press conference after this past Tuesday's rout, he came off as aloof and diffident. He did "take responsibility," but then almost in the same breath started to make justifications, blaming the economy, etc. And while everything he said may be true, it still wasn't what people wanted to hear. I think they would have liked a more personal statement from the president, particularly after John Boehner's tear-choked performance the night before. Instead he came off as cold, distant, analytical.
Now, I am not suggesting that all of these things are true all of the time. There are many Democrats who shine in all three of these closely-related areas. But too often we play into these stereotypes.
Finally, Democrats are perceived as not having conviction. I think this is particularly important. Too often we have allowed Republicans to set the tone of debates. Take the stimulus, for example. It worked. It unquestionably saved the economy from a complete meltdown. As bad as things have been, they would have been a LOT worse without the stimulus. And yet we allowed that victory to be turned into a defeat. We allowed the Republicans to frame the stimulus as "just another example of tax and spend liberalism." Instead of loudly and confidently defending our actions, we ran from them at the first hint of unpopularity.
Ditto the Wall Street bailout. Remember when the president was challenged by that investment banker during a town hall meeting about "beating up" on Wall Street? That was the perfect opportunity for him to stand up for himself. Instead of the thoughtful, well-reasoned (read: weak) response he gave, he should have showed a little fire. I would have liked to have seen him say something like, "Hey, I have an idea: Why don't you get down on your hands and knees and kiss my ass for saving your job?"
I think people want confidence, not intellectualizing. There is a danger in this, of course. Take it too far and you run the risk of turning into a swaggering, unreflective nitwit like Bush, spouting euphemisms and doggedly "staying the course" despite all evidence that it is a fool's errand. But a bit of swagger is a good thing. It comes across as strength and self-assuredness. And when we have accomplished something, we should be proud of it. A little less academic modesty and a little more "this is a big f***king deal" would go a long way.
We have suffered a loss, to be sure. But we have an opportunity here, too. As the majority party, the onus of governance is on the Republicans now. They actually have to DO something. I doubt they'll be able to. In fact, I think they are going to be largely preoccupied with their own internal problems. Now that they've stoked the Tea Party flame into an inferno, they need to keep it from burning their House down. We need to seize the opportunity and be on the attack. I believe we can turn their biggest asset -- their populist appeal -- into a liability if we focus like a laser beam on issues of socioeconomic class and opportunity. We can use it to drive a wedge between them and the Tea Party voters who supported them.
But to do it, we have to be willing to do something that we have never been entirely comfortable with: fight dirty. Instead of detailed explanations of why the health care bill is beneficial, we need to say, "Why do Republicans hate sick kids?" Instead of long-winded discussions of why tax cuts help the rich, we need to accuse Republicans of trying to build a "Wealthfare State." In short, we have to do to them what they have long done to us -- hammer them relentlessly and force them to be on the defensive.
Last time the GOP controlled the House it took us twelve years to get it back. We can do better this time.