As we wait to see what Congress will do on FISA, I thought the Democrats could use a reminder:
When Sherrod Brown prevailed over Paul Hackett in the primary for the Ohio senate, many Democrats became nervous; Hackett, an Iraq War veteran, seemed like a more viable option to run against incumbent Republican Mike DeWine than the unabashedly liberal Cleveland congressman whose record on the hot-button social issues was completely progressive. In the fabled state that won the election for Bush in 2004, it seemed like a bad idea to run a candidate whose record was to the left of John Kerry’s. Well, as it turned out, Sherrod Brown proved to be an excellent candidate. Instead of fudging his answers and trying to make himself look like something he wasn’t, he proudly stood up for his principles, emphasizing his economically progressive ideals, but without attempting to conceal his stances on the social issues. His unapologetic championing of the disadvantaged called to mind another progressive who never backed down from his core beliefs: the late, great Paul Wellstone.
Over in Missouri, then-State Auditor Claire McCaskill waged a tough fight against Jim Talent, the incumbent GOP senator. The stem cell initiative was on the ballot in that state, a potential risk in a state with such a high number of evangelicals. It was, therefore, a pleasant surprise when McCaskill put Talent on the defensive on that issue, and on the issue of abortion, in nearly every debate. In a key appearance on Meet The Press, Talent lobbed Republican talking points at McCaskill, and, rather than attempting to fit her responses into those frames, she effectively twisted them around to leave Talent as the weaker candidate, hemming and hawing and making excuses for his every statement. McCaskill’s margin of victory was small, but in a very conservative state like Missouri, it was enough!
Out on the ranges, where libertarianism runs strong, the Montana senate race saw a battle between two very colorful characters: the doddering embarrassment Republican Conrad Burns, who was often looked upon as something of a senile uncle even by his fellow GOPers, and the plain-spoken, buzz-cut-sporting Jon Tester, who won the senate primary over a less progressive state official. Burns trotted out the old canard of fearmongering, trying to to use Tester’s opposition to the PATRIOT Act as a political bludgeon. Had Tester been a weaker candidate, he would have attempted a nuanced explanantion, trying to convince people that he could be patriot without supporting the PATRIOT Act, accepting the right wing’s frames instead of creating his own. Luckily, Tester unleashed the no-nonsense directness that is a trademark of the Mountain West; in one key debate, in which Burns accused Tester of wanting to “weaken” the PATRIOT Act (clearly a standard GOP frame, portraying the Democrats as weak on terror and weak in general,) Tester famously responded, “I don’t want to weaken the PATRIOT Act, I want to repeal it.” Had John Kerry been anywhere near this bold in 2004, Bush would not have had a second term.
After looking at the victories of Brown, McCaskill, and Tester, I now turn to the only high-profile loser on our side, Harold Ford Jr. of Tennessee. Yes, I am well aware of the racist tactics that the Republicans used against Ford in the infamous “Call Me” ad (a frame-by-frame analysis is available here,) but I remain convinced that a stronger candidate, one with more backbone and more confidence in his own platform, would have been able to fight back and prevail. Ford embodied the ideals of a DINO at best. He appeared in a clumsy ad in a church, going too far into the territory of unsubtlety in an attempt to prove his religiosity. (I had serious flashbacks to John Kerry’s 2004 proclamation of himself to be the “candidate of conservative values.” The minute we accept the GOP frames, we’re dead in the water). On the campaign trail in ’06, Ford frequently trumpeted his opposition to gay marriage. He spoke in tones that ranged from cautious to mildly complimentary toward Bush’s Iraq policies, all the while distancing himself from the Democratic leadership in the senate. In short, he ran as a Republican. And why would anyone vote for a Republican who doesn’t have the conviction to actually run within the party that actually represents the conservative values he preaches, when they could vote for an actual Republican whose voting patterns are more sure-footed?
You see where I’m going with this. 2006 was a Democratic tidal wave, yet Harold Ford lost because of his own spinelessness and willingness to act like a Republican. The moral of the story here is to stick to your guns, champion your own progressive record, and be who you are.
Yes, Dorothy, progressive politics really are popular. Show some spine and you will be rewarded. Say ‘no’ to Bush and fear-mongering and law breaking. It’s not so hard and it actually feels good.
how does leiberman fit into that analysis?
He’s being who he really is, a worthless piece of crap.
And after he lost the Democratic primary, he was carried back into office by Republican voters, who have a long and storied history of voting for worthless pieces of crap.
I can’t tell you how genuinely happy I have been with Sherrod Brown as my Senator. He stood shoulder to shoulder with Dodd through his FISA battles and has consistently voted with the progressive side on important issues.
I was a little wary when Hackett dropped out in deference to Brown. All the rumblings of dirty politics and backstabbing. Hackett was profoundly pissed about how it played out. Flames were shooting out his ass.
But Brown has won me over.
Here is Ohio we lost a great liberal Senator this week. Howard Metzenbaum died yesterday.
It will likely be awhile before we see the likes of Howard again here in Ohio.
The first word I thought of as I read this was “triangulation”. No real, lasting good can come of it, as far as I’m concerned. Why many good people who are liberals and progressives in their hearts just won’t see this, I don’t know. Political cowardice is the biggest reason, of course. (The Kerry and “conservative values” thing almost triggered my gag reflex.)
I’m from a place where DINOs still walk the Earth and crush authentic liberals underfoot. I’m convinced that some are actually more liberal than they put forth, but they just don’t want to deal with the grief they’d get. Personally, I don’t wear my politics on my sleeve–it’s just not my nature, but I’ll speak up when I need to. And if I were to choose to go into politics, I’d have to. Anybody who goes into politics SHOULD have to. It’s not fair to the voters, otherwise.
The last poll I saw done on it (Pew, I think) ranked Mississippi as the third most conservative state in the nation, but I’ll never wear some dumbass lapel pin to prove something to someone who’s incapable of understanding why it shouldn’t matter in the first place.
FDR was politically shrewd, but he didn’t triangulate. He didn’t need to. He had an actual mandate for change — the kind only the voters can give. He had the coattails to bring the Congressional votes he would need with him.
No more Clintonian triangulation. No more 50%+1. The Republicans cannot be soundly defeated by Democrats willing to play as though they’re Republicans. The 50-state strategy is not only the right way, the smart way — it’s the only way to include people like me in the process. It’s the only way to turn it into a true revolution. Obama can do it the way it will have to be done. The way FDR did it. That’s the only way forward. Republicans of conscience and independents are drawn to Obama because they understand this. The transformation has to be clean, and genuine. Not a sham, a cynical calculation, a gambit, a ruse. Republicans are drawn to Clinton (as I just saw here in the Primary) for other reasons. They’re playing a game with people like Rush Limbaugh writing the rules. It’s a shame the Clintons can’t — or won’t — see that. November will get here soon, but not soon enough.
George Lakoff explained why (once again) triangulation doesn’t work in a recent LINK tv special, Propaganda and Politics.
http://www.linktv.org/programs/special_propaganda
The two cognitive frameworks Lakoff identifies — the “strict father” and “nurturant parent” — are in neural opposition. In other words, when one is turned on the other is turned off. Most people use both frameworks, and are called bi-conceptuals; not moderates, but politicians who activate a frame in order to argue against it are engaging in a self-defeating activity.
Two politicians that Lakoff uses to illustrate the idea of bi-conceptualism — Joe Lieberman and Chuck Hagel — have almost nothing in common. And the point Lakoff is making is that there is no middle. And he says this.
Lakoff also uses Tester as an example of someone who — apparently — used Lakoff’s advice. Rather than talk in terms like “environmentalism,” which only activates a network of negative associations, Tester spoke in terms of a love of the land which communicated to farmers who shared his values.
Lakoff’s advice is pretty simple — re-frame the issue in a progressive frame. Also, use honest frames and speak from your values.
A Republican-lite like Harold Ford Jr. is merely supporting Republican frames, and the result is often a loss — as it was in his case. Conservatives don’t feel the need to move to the left, and there’s no reason that progressives need to move to the right in order to be elected.
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/10/27_lakoff.shtml