I’ve just been listening to NPR’s afternoon program Talk of the Nation, in which they are discussing the Democrat’s chances in this year’s mid-term elections. One thing I kept hearing over and over from the guest pundit, Ken Rudin, the political affairs editor at NPR, was that the Democrats have no “rallying cry.” Democrats are playing not to lose, hoping the electorate’s disgust with Republican corruption and incompetence will lift them to victory without having to do any heavy lifting on their own.
And it does appear that this is the plan. We’ve seen how the DCCC and Rahm Emanuel have handpicked “establishment” candidates to run for office, and tossed aside potentially great candidates, such as Paul Hackett, after knifing him in the back. Like the old four corners offense in basketball, they think they have the lead, so the object of the game becomes not to shoot, but just to keep the ball in your own hands rather than risk turning it over to your opponent so he can score.
In short, they are employing a classic risk averse strategy. By managing to tack just to the left of Republicans on most issues (or to take no definable position at all) they hope to pick up enough “moderates” and disgruntled libertarians to win back the House (and maybe the Senate) this Fall. They seem to be convinced that this “make no noise” approach is the right one. Well, maybe it seemed like a great idea to the consultants who’ve helped them lose every Congressional election since 1994 to the GOP, but I wonder how Francine Busby feels about it this morning. After all, she played it safe. Her positions on issues were straight down the middle of the road, but today all they look like is so much roadkill.
For that reason alone, I think Mr. Rudin is on to something. Dems can’t just get on the stump this year and bleat about how Bush and the Republican Congress are taking us down the wrong path, that the country is headed over a cliff, and blah, blah, blah. They actually need to to let people know the path they would steer the country upon if they get control of the Great American Government Bus back in their hands. And, yes, it helps to have a rallying cry, one issue that clearly distinguishes you from your adversary.
In my opinion, the Democrats are extremely fortunate this year, because they have TWO very powerful issues with which to distinguish themselves from Republicans, if they only have the guts and good sense to use them: Iraq and Global Warming.
(cont.)
Iraq is easy. A clear majority of Americans, in poll after poll, now say that the Iraq war was a mistake, that Bush’s handling of the war has been a disaster, and that it’s time to pull our forces out, or at the very least set a deadline by which our forces will be completely out. Jack Murtha understands this intuitively. And lately a few other brave souls have added their voices to his: John Kerry, Russ Feingold and Al Gore, to name but a few.
But intermittent shots to the Republican war regime by these worthies isn’t nearly enough, nor will any single statement by any one politician garner enough media attention for long enough to indelibly stamp this position upon the Democratic Party, as a whole. It’s got to be clearly shown to the Public that the Democratic Party stands for withdrawal from Iraq. That the longer we stay there, the worse things will get: for the troops, for the Iraqis and for our own national security.
What we need is a major announcement by as many of our Democratic leaders as we can round up, preferably at a press conference jointly called by Howard Dean, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, to make it clear that Democrats are the party that wants to stop exposing our troops to any further needless sacrifice in Iraq. That Democrats are the party which wants to end the slaughter. That Democrats are the party which opposes the Iraq war.
It should be an easy decision for Democratic leaders. The American people are already there, out in front of both Democrats and Republicans on this issue; all they are waiting for are candidates who will stand up and say what we all want to hear, that it’s time to leave Iraq, and bring our men and women in the military home.
We know that the Republicans are locked in to staying the course on Iraq. They risk losing even more of their base if they abandon Bush on the single most defining issue of his Presidency. They have to be hoping like hell that the Democrats continue their muddled approach to this issue because then there won’t be any clear, definitive difference between the two parties on the war in the mind of the American people.
Let’s hope that Dems get the courage of their convictions and do the right thing, both for our country and for their own political fortunes.
* * *
The second rallying point, global warming, around which all Democrats should swarm like bees to honey, is truly a gift. Democrats are already seen as the party that favors environmentalism, energy conservation and controls on greenhouse gas emissions. And once again, the polls show the public is already firmly in the “global warming is really happening” camp, especially after last year’s hurricane season.
Thanks to Al Gore’s movie coming out this summer, and all the buzz it has created, this is now the hottest topic on the media’s political radar. Proof of that can be seen by all the opposition that’s suddenly appeared, literally overnight, on our television screens, in astroturf funded advertisements and by “expert analysts” on Fox News, CNN and MsNBC who have railed against Gore and the global warming “controversy,” “myth” or “hoax” he is perpetrating on the public. The issue can only get more play if Democrats, as a party, announce they stand for taking immediate action to stop Global Warming. Today.
Again, this issue sets up perfectly for Democrats. They can piggyback on the publicity train that is “An Inconvenient Truth” and further magnify the effect that film is already having across America by frequent appearances touting the growing danger we all face from increased emissions of greenhouse gases, a danger the Republicans are willfully ignoring. But again, we need some specific and prominent public relations event staged on behalf of a sizable number of prominent Democratic politicians to get that train really rolling on behalf of all Democrats, in general, as opposed to just Al Gore, in particular.
There are so many angles Democrats can talk about this issue, and so many contexts in which it can be raised: from the increase in deadly hurricanes like Katrina, to Bush’s suppression government scientists and their research; from public health angles (the threat of more diseases like malaria, asthma, etc.) to our national security needs (i.e., we can save both the planet and become energy independent from all the “crazies” in the Persian Gulf who have us, literally, over a barrel). And of course, it fits right in with the Republicans are the party of corruption meme: all you need to do as a Dem candidate at any campaign stop is point to all the political contributions your opponent has received from the oil companies, while pledging not to accept such tainted money yourself.
Like the Iraq war, global warming already has the Republicans boxed in. They can’t abandon their big money donors in the oil, automobile and utility industries. Further, any candidate who tries to claim he or she is “environmentally friendly” can likely be portrayed as a “flip flopper” who say one thing on the campaign trail while voting another way once his or her seat in Congress is secured.
So those are my two rallying cries for Democrats. One can make an argument for Medicare D and health care in general as an issue that is also worthy of such a prominent position, and certainly the continuing overreach by the Bush administration in the area of privacy rights is important to the core of the party’s faithful. But right now, Anerica’s attention is primarily focused on Iraq, and, to a slightly lesser, but steadily growing extent, on the issue of global warming. So those are the issues Democrats, as a party, should lead with this Fall, in my opinion. Those are my two rallying cries for the coming campaign.
Is anyone in the Democratic leadership listening? I sure as hell hope so. Opportunities like this November don’t come along very often in our political cycles. It would be more than a shame if the Democrats botched this one thanks to their own timidity.
Let’s hope that Dems get the courage of their convictions…
If that were what they were — convictions — the courage would be there.
and I’ll say it again:
Candidates with good moral-democratic values believe in something and tell the truth — then if voters believe in the same thing, those candidates will get elected.
That’s how politics SHOULD work.
All the focus grouped and constultant-ized politics is plutocratic population management, not government by and for the people.
national health insurance is a winning issue — and one that could force the republicans to clearly reveal their elitist, profits-before-people agenda.
I agree. But not as the front line issue. In a support role.
Global warming should take a support role to single payer health care. Unless the dems want to lose.
National health insurance would make direct improvements in many people’s lives in the near term (assuming Bush could be cowed into going along of course). GLobal warming is important and should not be ignored, but it’s a bit abstract and in the near term would apparently only involve sacrifice, which I for one would be happy to do, but I’m not so sure about most Americans. (I haven’t seen the movie; maybe it helps get past these kinds of issues…)
A sustainable energy policy, encompassing the pending global warming crisis, should be a part of any decent political agenda, but it seems too late for Dems to make it a real part of the 2006 campaign.
I never said to ignore the issue of global warming. But, from a realistic point of view, the Joe sixpacks don’t care about global warming. They care about the economy, and health care. Get the single payer system in place, costs to business for health care will decrease. Then energy costs/conservation are another one, as nine pointed out. Fix those and more will be willing to get involved in the subject of global warming and come up with a realistic solution.
Should be front and center.
Well, at least we can agree they need to get off their duffs and start defining themselves away from Repubs on the issues of the day.
Actually, we both are, IMO.
So, that brings up a ? that only the dems in DC can answer–why don’t they?
Making a giant issue out of global warming could backfire if experts show the economic and lifestyle negatives to be very large. I think it needs to be a policy consideration, but to make it number one, again, may not win many votes and may well cost votes.
Try substituting the current conservative war on women’s reproductive freedoms, women’s privacy rights, and the religious intolerance being forced on many people to follow the religious beliefs of others about the beginning of life. Now that is an issue with some taction (as in votes) or soon will be, IMO!
I think you fall into the trap Republicans like to set about global warming debates when you try to talk about the issue in terms of economiucs, especially since no one can reliably predict what will happen one way or the other.
Keep it simple: It’s happening, its dangerous and we can do something to help ourselves while getting rid of our addiction to Middle East oil.
I think we need a carrots and stick approach on global warming. Too many people seem to think Gore’s message is all about the sky is falling and doom is at hand. True he paints a scary picture of the consequences of continued inaction, but he also makes a powerful case for the opportunities that await us if we face the issue and deal with it. There are profits to be made in recycling and in renewable energy technologies, just to name two. Some resourceful companies will do very well by getting ahead of the curve. We need to emphasize that aspect at least as much as we do the scary parts.
especially since no one can reliably predict what will happen one way or the other.
Well, isn’t that the point and the main reason why it is NOT a prime issue now. It is too easy to ignore this isue still becasue of thw uncertainty, and making it a top priority could even turn against us when we are considering getting voters to vote for us! I am not against it being a policy consideration, but not one of the top two at this time. From a strictly political point of view, only environmental nerds are going to get that excited now about this subject, and there are not enough of these!
As a self-avowed environmental nerd I could take offense at that, but I happen to agree with you. Especially the part about there not being enough of us. Yet.
The argument for Part D and healtcare could be the most important of all, IMO. There is a perception among many that although global warming is important, it takes the focus of domestic issues. And people are being hurt the most (economically) by the lack of attention payed to domestic issues. Iraq is also important, as social progams and health care policy is being sacrificed to finance that.
Cross posted at our online neighbor and party co-host My Left Wing.
I used to be a regular NPR listener and contributor, but I stopped contributing after they let Bob Edwards go and stopped listening during the crap they presented during the 2004 primaries.
However, today I found myself as a passenger in a car on the way to do some grocery shopping and turned on NPR just in time to catch the beginning of today’s Talk of the Nation. I couldn’t stand listening past the point where Ken Rudin had the following to say about Tester’s primary victory over Morrison and Senator Conrad Burns’ corruption problems (Rudin made sure to talk about Morrison’s extra-marital affair and equated it to Burns’ corruption):
As if there were any allegations of corruption in Montana for any Senate candidate other than the Republican Burns.
I didn’t hear that part. Pretty ridiculous though.
with focusing on single-payer health care (and now that the spouse and I are temporarily paying for our own, it’s even more a subject near and dear to our hearts) is that it gives the Republicans the opportunity to pull out the “socialized medicine” boogeyman — you’ll see the black and white images of folks standing in line and the talking point “this is what’s coming to your doctor’s office if the Democrats put through their socialized medicine plan.”
How about taking the Republicans’ claim of “security” and turning it around against them? How “secure” were the people of New Orleans? How “secure” are the people on the Eastern Seaboard if the talk of heavier storms there materialize? How “secure” are the folks in the Midwest against tornadoes, drought and wildfires, especially with their National Guard troops (and equipment) stuck in Iraq? Oh, and by the way, where’s Osama? [This can tie in with the global warming/climactic change issue, as well as focusing how we’re wasting our resources in Iraq.]
Iraq is a no brainer. We need to hang Iraq around the Republicans’ neck like a dead albatross. It belongs to Bush. He wanted it and they gave it to him. Granted, a whole bunch of Democrats went along when they shouldn’t have, but the climate of intimidation would have made it political suicide to oppose the stampede to war. We need to shove that back in their faces.
I’m not sure global warming should be the other issue. Personally I think it is virtually the only issue. I think the consequences of continued ignorance and inaction on GHG and climate change dwarf the fallout even of Iraq. If it were up to me we’d use An Inconvenient Truth to start a tidal wave and sweep Al Gore into the White House. But I’m not sure the electorate in general shares our concern just yet. Gore’s jihad does seem to be raising awareness. If AIT continues to have the kind of impact early reviews suggest, it may raise the general awareness in time to have some influence on the elections this fall. But I don’t think it’s on the top of the list for most people. Yet.
I’m with Street Kid. I think health care ought to be very high on any list of issues. Health care in America was a mess before the Republicans got hold of it, and everything they’ve done has made it worse. I think the millions of Americans who essentially have no health care would really like this issue to be at the top of the agenda. I think the millions more who are locked into their jobs because they can’t afford to risk losing what health insurance they have would agree. I think the issue of health care is a powerful wedge into the much broader issue of fairness. I think we would find a lot of attentive ears.
The discussion of what the rallying cry should be should have been held a year ago. I could, and have, written pages upon pages about my disgust at the reluctance to draw up an agenda and to hash out a national party platform. But whatever, as they say.
But sadly, it is too late to do this in time for the November election. After all, can Democrats agree on issues like health care? global warming? the war? Yeah, right.
So what’s left?
I think the answer is vision. And that vision involves fairness.
Everyone understands fairness. Fairness should apply to taxes, opportunity, the environment, etc. What Democrats want is fairness — balance, in other words — it’s not that we want to promote gay marriage, we just want everyone to be treated fairly — its not that we want to give illegal immigrants amnesty, its that we don’t want to bash immigrants while giving perks to the employers who encourage more illegal immigration — its not that we want to raise taxes, its that we don’t want to mortgage our future by giving all our resources to the rich. Democrats don’t want to line-up the wealthy against a wall, but they don’t see why the wealthy should be given perks not available to the rest of tax paying America.
A positive vision for America would provide a stark contrast to the negative, fear mongering of the Republicans. To Repugs, we should fear terrorism, immigrants, gays, liberals, judges, etc. To Democrats, it is the creed that all men are created equal, and that government’s role is to promote and protect the values enshrined in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
With Democrats in control, we would accomplish this by protecting life (national security), liberty (by ending big government interference in our lives) and the pursuit of happiness (by insuring that everyone is treated fairly regardless of their income level, race or sex).
By having a shared vision we can mold our campaigns to fit the situation. For instance, when Bilbray spoke out against illegal immigration, the Democratic candidate should have spoken about making sure the policies were fair — fair to employers, fair to immigrants, and fair to those already citizens of the U.S. Instead, Busby got caught supporting unpopular (in CA-50) legislation written by Congressmen who have an approval rating lower than even Bush’s.
Where national security is a top issue, Democrats should proudly proclaim that they will protect America by pursuing OBL and terrorists — we all agree on this, so there is no controversy. But we can also say that Iraq was mishandled and has taken our attention away from Al Qaeda. Poll after poll says we are right about this. Republicans, especially in red districts, want to throw Iraq in our face, so what do we do? We throw OBL in their face that proclaim that the Republicans are losing the war on terror and we won’t. If the district is Berkeley our message is not inconsistent when we talk about the waste of the war in Iraq. It is not inconsistent to say we will fight terrorism but not waste American blood in Iraq. But the vision has to be flexible enough to work in every district, in every state.
In conclusion, trying to find a set of issues that will work for Democrats in November, when it is already June is hopeless — especially when that debate has been discouraged up til now. Instead, we need something that all Democratic candidates can agree on. That something has to already exist — why not the principals that all Americans used to claim to believe in?
I think Steven is right about the major themes: Iraq and the Climate Crisis. Health care and election reform are the other two that need to be emphasized. These are pressing needs.
The Climate Crisis and what needs to be done are difficult for people to understand, but Al Gore is proving that a lot of progressives are ready to focus on it, and that’s a start. It’s likely going beyond progressives at this point.
I can’t help but fantasize about the ticket that could sell all of this and more: Gore-Obama. Gore-Feingold wouldn’t be bad. I have no doubt that Al Gore can win the presidency against any Republican. He was against the Iraq war before it started. He’s obviously the Climate Crisis go-to guy. He can talk from the inside about how the Republicans and big insurance companies destroyed the chance for the Clinton health care plan, and the costly disaster that followed. And as the guy everybody knows won the popular vote and really won the 2000 election, he can talk about election reform in a way that people will listen. Gore’s the guy. I hope he’s listening.
I can’t agree with you more. How do we scream this in the ears of party chairs all across the country?
Get proactive now! Now, Seize the Moment. Busby’s loss should be the big kicker on this!
so let me add this:since Steven was talking about this fall. I do agree that Iraq and everything about Bush that people are upset about have to be major elements of Democrats’ campaigns. I also believe that voters are ready to hear this stuff said in plain language, and they will gravitate towards candidates that provide that clarity, and a clear alternative.
But congressional elections are local (or state) as well as national, and these messages have to be tailored to each race. So there’s nothing wrong with a menu of issues; some will play better in one place or another. I do think there can be a theme everyone can buy into, and we all have our ideas about what it should be. I know I do.