I like anti-Blue Dog rants as much as the next guy, but now that we’re in the minority in the House, we have to devise strategies to win back a lot of their seats. We also face the grim reality that the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling isn’t going to be overturned and no new campaign finance law is going to pass. So, more than ever, we are going to be either competing for corporate cash or swamped by it, or both.
It’s beginning to feel like that whole mid-20th Century liberal coalition was only made possible by a deal with the devil of segregation. So long as Democrats looked the other way at Jim Crow, southern politicians would give us their votes for New Deal policies. But once the Democrats got serious about enforcing civil rights for blacks the deal was off. All of a sudden, the southern Democrat was all about pro-business policies and fiscal conservatism. Part of this is just the anti-Washington sentiment that forced-desegregation created in the South. But part of it is that modern Democrats in the South can’t compete financially because their constituents are too culturally conservative for them to appeal to traditional liberal political action committees, and local Dems are poorer than in the North. Therefore, they see no alternative to getting their money from the business end of things. Moveover, their best strategy for avoiding getting taken out in wave elections is to accumulate massive war chests. In good times, this can dissuade potential challengers, and in bad times it gives them a fighting chance.
Add to this, that in conservative-leaning areas of the country, almost all political speech is of the Rush Limbaugh/Michael Savage variety, and you can see why Blue Dogs behave the way they do. On Tuesday, these problems cropped up not only in the South, but throughout rural and suburban areas of the midwest, Pennsylvania, and New York.
We can’t pretend that all we have to do is nominate more populist candidates to win these seats back. We have to figure out how to fund those candidates and how to help them get their message out. If we don’t, some of these seats will never come back, and others will only be winnable with more candidates who will never be there for us when it counts.
I’m from the South and I know Democrats can be competitive in the South if they get serious about party building and get back to the business of representing every day folk and really listening to them .
In economic issues? Because that’s the only way we can win down there these days. Can a Huey Long(meaning that type of populism) type win there?
Can real Dems be competitive there without caving on the God, Guns, and Gays kind of issues? I have my doubts. Maybe we should just concentrate on revving up the Black, hispanic, and other minority votes in places where they can tip the balance and write off the rest.
Any honest read of history will tell you that’s exactly how FDR managed to get the New Deal through. And it wasn’t so much a “deal with the Devil” as it was that that was what the Democratic coalition was from the end of the Civil War on – a coalition of people who were kept together only because of their mutual distrust and dislike of Republicans. Northern Democrats distrusted Republicans because the Republican Party was bought-and-paid-for by the Northern elite millionaire industrialists. Southern Democrats hated the Republican party because, well, it was the party of Lincoln. In the South it was the party of the blacks. Also the rich in the South were not industrialists, their wealth was in agriculture. So they didn’t really benefit from the kinds of things Republican elites were pushing for.
Fast forward to LBJ and things have changed. Northern Democrats were sick of the apartheid state, and starting to feel that it was more important to end segregation than to keep the coalition together. More industry was moving into the South (prompted by the WWII, actually), and so Southern elites were starting to think a lot more like the Northern elites. An alliance between the rich in the South and the rich in the North was inevitable once the industrial revolution finally made its way into the South after being stagnated by the aftermath of the Civil War.
I think people look back on FDR and LBJ and wonder “why can’t Democrats be like that these days”. And the answer is that both FDR and LBJ had a whole lot of rich assholes who had their backs for a good long while. The Democrats still have some rich assholes in the coalition – notably folks in the tech sector and “Hollywood types” as the Republicans like to call them – but not like they did in FDR’s time, when the rich in this country were split along cultural lines that ran much, much deeper than their common hatred of taxes.
It is not true that rich in the South were not industrialists after the Civil War. That is when the textile industry was started with local spinning and weaving mills, financed by subscription of local business owners and eventually making the mill owner the richest guy in town. And a Democrat because of the Republican Reconstruction. The former plantation owners were not wiped out. They invested in railroads, banks, and even the first orange groves in Florida. And they definitely were not Republicans. The tobacco manufacturing industry made a bunch of formerly small farmers rich and was prosperous enough to allow the start of a black working class and black businesses to serve them. And yes, they were Republican.
In the New Deal, there were a number of relatively young farmer-labor Democrats. LBJ was one. Olin D. Johnston of SC another. Claude Pepper was so pro-labor that after World War II, George Smathers beat him in a Democratic primary by calling him “Red Pepper”.
Not super complicated. Its called the 50 state strategy. DNC needs to help build and support the infrastructure and organization to promote good dem candidates at every level in every state. Rahm hated that idea and with his ascendance as Obama’s right hand, that project got scrapped.
but yea, i agree that the relevant question is where does the money come from to build this infrastructure if not from corporations- who of course only want business-friendly, anti-populist candidates. The answer I see it is that in situations like this, when the rules of the game are against you, you change the game. IE, strengthen the ability for workers to unionize and the south will become much more unionized since its union rate right now is basically 0%, change campaign finance laws so corporations aren’t calling the shots. Im disappointed Obama didn’t take the progressive window to do some of these things.
“Im disappointed Obama didn’t take the progressive window to do some of these things.”
you don’t read this site enough, the president is a powerless figurehead and those things are impossible.
the democrats told me so.
First off, I think that while money is extremely important, it’s not everything. You need enough money to establish a media presence, but after a while tv ads reach a saturation point. Money is often better spent on direct voter contacts (which is much more effective, btw) and outside groups are terrible at building that sort of infrastructure. And we don’t need a lot of money to build campaign infrastructure at the local level – all we need is enough motivated volunteers and to make sure we keep people engaged between elections. No more demolishing our infrastructure and then rebuilding it every 2 years.
Second, I think that it would still be a good idea to push for public financing of campaigns, disclosure laws, etc. It won’t stop the flow of money, but it might check it a bit.
Third, we should start organizing now for a constitutional amendment to end corporate personhood. Yes, that sounds crazy, but it needs to happen eventually or we’re screwed. Best to start now.
Fourth, I think we need to start coming up with 2-3 clear “pledges” for candidates for office – ones that are specific enough that we can hold them to it. They’ll be much less likely to back out if it’s on paper, and if they renege we primary them.
Just some ideas.
Your fourth idea is why people need to get involved locally. Especially if you want to prevent Blue Dogs(or people like them) from destroying the party.
Tough job.
I’m live in Texas. Demographically, the state is supposed to be turning bluer with the growth of the Latino population but in this election, the state got redder. Redistricting is going to make it even tougher than it already is.
There is a cultural tribalism with whites that seems really strong here. I am a WASP but because of the job I have, I keep my politics to myself. I am in sales and sell to the financial services industry so it is conservative central where I am and I admit to being a coward when it comes to admitting I am a liberal.
I feel like I might be the victim of a high tech curb stomping to paraphrase Clarence Thomas.
I am really at a loss on what can be done.
Well you’re getting closer to acknowledging the elephant in the room: that white folks (on the whole) and our bigotry are the basic problem.
You’re still too scared to say it flat-out, but you’re getting closer, at least.
At this rate, genuine acknowledgment of the problem should be commonplace in about 20-40 years. Unless, of course, if other white folks shout you down, and you accept being shouted down like a coward. In that case, the ETA goes back to never.
lols
The key a two pronged message: First, a positive message about the Dem candidate as he appeals to an important local issue (see: economy). Second, a negative message about the opponent being a puppet and untrustworthy because you don’t know who he works for.
None of that vague stuff that Dems normally do. No insinuation at the possibility of corruption. Make the claim, then pound them with it.
The alternative plan would be to write off the most intractable red states/districts and concentrate on places where a genuinely progressive message, well delivered, might have a chance. That would require learning a few things from the teabaggers, starting with being willing to operate separately from the Dem Party. As long as the party is burdened with never saying anything that would weaken the Blue Dogs and the like, it will continue to look like the Party of Nothing at a time when voters are demanding real change.
We handed the teabaggers the “change” vote without a fight. We need to get much more sophisticated about building effective outside coalitions who can begin to change perceptions about basic economic and social “conventional wisdom” instead of, like the Dems, becoming the defenders of the status quo. Cognitive dissonance doesn’t seem to hurt the Republican core any, but it’s killing us.
Populism in the South has been a matter of style rather than ideology. It’s a fighting style on the stump that current Democrats are afraid to adopt. And it is a style in which folks start early talking to their future constituents or build a record in local and state government. It very much retail politics, something that Democrats seem to have forgotten how to do effectively. A respect for the “folks who work hard and play by the rules” that is more than rhetorical. One that folks can sense. A style that listens and probes citizens who come out with talking points gently with, “Why do you say that?” in a way that invites the citizen to explain what that talking point means to them and why they are attached to it.
A style of campaigning that is campaigning more than marketing. That actually knows the audience instead of hiring some consultant to spin fantasies about the audience.
And one in which folks know you respect family and participate actively in church (a tough thing to do given the collapse of honest Christianity outside of black churches and a few remaining liberal churches in college towns in the South) and participate authentically in the Southern pastimes of hunting, fishing, talking sports, and golf.
Now that is for the areas outside of the New South cities. Kay Hagen seems to be able to reach these sorts of folks.
The suburbs require a much different approach, one more like suburbs elsewhere but walking the racial minefield more deftly than one has to do outside the South. It is more difficult to talk honestly about race in the suburbs than in the country. Although there are a few diverse suburbs in some of the high-tech towns. But in most places, the suburbs are as much a world apart as they are in large cities.
And suburb or rural area, you have to be able to distinguish between the white Baptist and evangelical churches that are active and the ones that are no more than a front for the Republican party.
But before Democrats can be competitive in a Congressional District, they must be competitive in a county. Otherwise conservatives think they can get away with saying anything. And that is where the 50-state strategy that strengthened county and state parties was so helpful. It bootstraps county Democrats so they have the resources to find, train, and run candidates–and build their volunteer and resource base.
The South is no more difficult than Arizona and a lot easier than Utah, Wyoming, or Idaho.