Tied to Failure
By Leon H Wolf Posted in War — Comments (26) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
As I have watched the Democrats' consensus position on the war in Iraq change over the last three years, my emotional response has run the full gambit from anger to horror to disgust. The anger resulted from their duplicity, when they attempted to court the anti-war vote while simultaneously defending their support for the war. As they attempted to make a dizzying array of justifications for why they should be loved by both sides of the fence, the Democrats bumbled their way to a crushing loss in 2004, which sent them all scurrying for answers.
To our very great pleasure, Jerome Armstrong has found the answer for the Democrats:
The real defeatists today are not those protesting the war. The real defeatists are those in power and their silent supporters in the opposition party who are reduced to repeating "Stay the course". Gary Hart. He's got tough medicine for the Senators that voted in favor of invading Iraq. That should be simple enough for all Democrats to agree-- that staying the course is not an option.
It is hard to decide which is better news - that Democrats are listening to Gary Hart again, or that there has never been a political party more tied to failure than the modern Democrats.
More below the fold.
There is, of course, a sense in which the minority party automatically becomes the "opposition party." When a single party controls both chambers of Congress and the Executive branch, they will of course drive the agenda for what is happening in the country. For the Democrats at the federal level right now, there is little hope of pushing positive agenda matters through most committees right now, much less into law. So, as a matter of practicality, there are two options left to the Democrats on many issues: (1) Obstruction and (2) complaint.
What the Democrats have yet to realize (and, to be fair, it took the Republicans a long, long time to figure this out as well), is that opposition is not a winning electoral strategy. They have, with the exception of a delusional few, realized that they are, in fact, losing. However, the disaster for them is that they have determined that the solution to their losing problem is to make their opposition even more rancid. Perhaps, they have rationalized, the problem is that the American public has not yet realized just how much they hate Republicans and everything they stand for.
This kind of strategy is all well and good for riling up the base, and creating a lot of sound and fury. However, it's not so much something average Americans will latch onto. What the Donks do not realize is that the American people, by and large, are an optimistic bunch of people. Sure, we get angry sometimes, and there are moments when we are capable of despair, doom and gloom. But part of what has made America a great nation is our irrepressible optimistic spirit - our refusal to capitulate in difficult circumstances. That spirit, although arguably diminished what it was in times past, is still a large part of our national consciousness. And part of that spirit is that we don't like whiners and defeatists.
And thus the Democrats stumble unwittingly into further electoral defeat in 2006, in that they have hitched their entire wagon to defeat in Iraq, and complaint about the President's prosecution of that war. There is very little question that the public at this point is tiring of the war and that the President's numbers are suffering because of it. Mistakenly, this has led them to believe that a party of folks screaming "I told you so," at the top of their lungs can capitalize on this discontent. Perhaps, if the election were held this November, they could (even though the polling numbers are equally consistent that the Democrats are not benefiting from the President's drop in popularity). Given that the next major elections will not happen until next November, they will not.
Inbetween now and next November, a number of highly significant events are going to take place. The Iraqis are going to have a vote on ratifying their constitution. They are going to begin to get on their feet as an autonomous government. And, one way or another, some of our troops will begin to come home. Make no mistake that the Democrats are praying that exactly none of these things will happen. What they do not realize is that even if they get their wish, and the situation goes to absolute pot in Iraq - absent a positive policy vision, that will not translate into electoral wins for them.
Say what you want about Bush, or the decision to invade Iraq, or the subsequent execution of the invasion/occupation. Attempting to place a democracy in the heart of the Middle East was a grand policy vision. If this policy vision succeeds, and the Democrats continue down their path, they will have tied themselves to a large anchor and tossed that anchor into the sea. This is a risk, however, that the Democrats seem to be willing to take, given that they are absolutely confident that the vision will fail. I believe, however, given the character of the American people, that even if they are successful in their wager, they will have garnered absolutely nothing with the public, except the right to say, "I told you so."
Saying "I told you so," is satisfying for the person saying it. It's gratifying to revel in the knowledge that you were right and all others were wrong. It's also natural to trumpet your "I told you so," claim to the hilltops, making sure that absolutely everyone knows just exactly how right you were. There's only one small problem. Nobody wants to hear "I told you so." Not even folks who are sitting on the fence. It's the political equivalent of acting like a nine-year-old brat, and it will backfire.
The reaction, however, is so very tempting and so very self-satisfying that I don't think the Democrats will be able to avoid reveling in it. I don't see a Newt Gingrinch on their side who is championing the kind of positive agenda that dissatisfied voters can latch on to. Instead, the folks grabbing microphones on the other side of the aisle are folks whose only mode of communication is complaint, whose only hope is failure, and who are, moreover, genuinely unlikeable people. Howard Dean, Michael Moore and Markos Moulitsas are probably genuinely loved by their followers. The failure of the Democrats is to realize how these folks are perceived by the broader population, and further how disastrous it is to march them out before the voting public screaming, "I told you so!"
Many Republicans will remember that in the wake of the 1992 elections, in which all three branches of government were delivered to the Democrats, there were two distinct and necessary elements that led to the victory of 1994. First, you had Rush Limbaugh keeping the base fired up behind the scenes, and providing a voice for those who felt disenfranchised by the current makeup of the government. Rush even went so far as to publish a book called, "See, I Told You So." As I recall, he at one point promised that he'd release a sequel "See, I Told You So" book every year that Clinton was in office (thankfully, we were spared 8 of these books.) On the other hand, the wonkish and smiling Newt Gingrich became the public face of the party, pushing a positive agenda in the Contract with America which was at once simple to understand, popular in its principles, and daring in its scope. The Democrats these days have managed to out-Rush Rush in their scorn for the other side. Where they have failed is in locating someone who is at least marginally likeable, who has a grasp on what the American people really want (Free hint: It's not socialized health care), whom they can place before the microphones to propound a positive legislative agenda that the American people can stand behind.
What is further depressing, if you are a Democrat, is that it's hard to determine where such a person might potentially even come from. Who do they have waiting in the wings who engenders warm feelings in the average American? Harry Reid? God help us, Joe Biden? Easily their best hope was probably Harold Ford Jr., but they denied him a platform from which he could have done some real damage in favor of the immacuately coiffed and intellectually substandard Nancy Pelosi. Likewise, Barack Obama is too new to the game and has no real bully pulpit to use, at least for another 4 years.
Unless they discover a purpose, a vision, and a personality, the Democrats will be doomed to repeat the same political note over and over again - namely, tying themselves to the possibility of American failure in Iraq, or at the very least, Republican failure at home. However, they will always have a problem taking this approach: no one is inspired by someone who looks for failure, who barely contains their glee when it occurs, and who seeks to capitalize on a misfortune that affects a whole country. That is not the sort of agenda that almost anyone votes for, and it certainly isn't one that's capable of flipping a ten-seat majority.
So, here's hoping the Democrats keep taking Jerome Armstrong's advice. Given the performance of the Republicans recently, we're going to need all the help we can get.
« We need more COIN in the Afghan realm — Comments (0) | Really, really good news — Comments (1) »
Tied to Failure 26 Comments (0 topical, 26 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
As a Democrat and a liberal, I agree with almost all of Leon's points.
Although Leon suggests that the Dems need a platform that is reflective of what the American people really want, I think much of the real problem is that the party's politics are governed far too much by what is polling well at any particular moment and adapting to it rather than taking principled positions and persuading the people of their merits. The few positions of principle that the party does take are on some of the most divisive topics out there (e.g. abortion), which doesn't exactly result in a grand unifying vision.
I missed his interview on ABC yesterday.
Did he take a bite at race baiting, or did he follow his better angels?
I think you're dead-on about what Newt did for his party with the CWA, but he was also great at firing up the base, and not so popular with the population at large.
On the other side, I think the most dangerous person is Chuck Schumer. He's a smarmy sleezeball, but he's probably the smartest guy they have.
Then again, it takes a team to win. Newt had Armey, Barbour et al.
And it's not like there are a bunch of moderate-to-liberal Republicans holding seats in places like Massachusetts who are either going to switch parties or get beat like there were with the Democrats down South. If anything, there are still a few places down South which should be represented by Republicans but aren't.
As a liberal and a Democrat, where would you go next? I think it's a tough question.
A lot of the most important progressive ideas have been tried (most notable exception being national health care). Some have worked, some haven't.
From a broad historical perspective, I just think we're in a period where were going to try the conservative ideas for a stretch. During that period, progressives will be stuck mostly trying to defend turf that has already been taken over the past 50 years.
My positive note to progressives is: The ideas that survive this challenge will be part of the landscape forever.
Leon alludes briefly to what Republicans did while out of power. But he focused on a brief out of power moment. Over the longer stretch of time when the conservatives were, for the most part, out of power (1965-2000), conservatives figured out who they were and what they believed in.
I think that process takes time -- perhaps decades. I don't think the Democrats are quite ready for it yet. They are still in "a can't believe we lost" mode. They will "tweak the message and energize the base" again in 2006 and 2008. Only after losing in 2008 will they start the process of redefining what the progessive movement should be about in the 21st century.
When they do, I promise to give their ideas a good listen.
(BTW, I agree that Obama will be part of all of that. I haven't heard enough to be sure, but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be ashamed to call that man my president. He is a class act.)
but according to Mark Kilmer's review he went so far as to say the government is "indifferent" to blacks. Not quite Kanye West, but a little curious.
... but let's hope that the fresh, open young man we've seen so far is being taught the ropes by the Democratic leadership. That would be truly unfortunate.
The Dems in 1968 decisively rejected the FDR agenda, for better and worse, for the 1968 Cultural Revolution, and all that implied. This in turn led to massive elements of working class and middle class people peeling off from their Party as economic interests were neglected for social change.
Let me add that much of the social change was IMHO both positive and required for the good of the Nation. Including in this being Civil Rights, environmental action, and inclusion of gays in public life. However as an overall agenda it was limiting, especially as it included an article of faith, the rejection of law and order domestically and military force abroad.
Dems could offer a truly competitive alternative to Republican platforms by simply updating FDR's approach. Big Government aimed at Big Problems and run competently. However their approach is much more life-style and culturally driven; hence the "illegal and immoral war" instead of "here's a plan to win decisively over our enemies."
Overall the nasty legacy for the Party since 1968 has been a reliance on "moral" legalism devolving into process based goals; instead of a focus on action based agendas focused on the desired results. Republicans too have fallen victim to this but less so than the Dems which IMHO accounts for their marginal advantage (which is growing).
As a Registered Democrat of the Zell Miller variety I would vote in a heartbeat for Rudy Guiliani as President. Not in personal admiration for his character (I believe most Dems and Reps of national stature are all decent, good men and women). But rather because his proven agenda of getting positive results for the City of New York shows what you get with him: a focus of improving the quality of life by emphasizing good government and public safety in particular. Much of New York's economic rebound was driven by the improved public safety that Rudy focused on, and the ability of entrepenuers to invest in formerly hostile areas as the City changed from "Taxi Driver" to the Today Show/Disney. That leading Cultural Dems decry the "lost city" of DeNiro and Jodie Foster tells you all you need to know.
you accuse the Democrats of tying their platform to pointing to the failures of the Republicans (which of course you do not acknowledge) while from my perspective the Republican platform, especially the portion that riles up the base and gets them to the polls is predicated on the spector of the dire consequences of allowing Democrats to run the country, not any particular positive benefits of Republican governance. For example if the Democrats take over we will have free government funded abortions for everyone, activist judges forcing catholic priests to perform gay marriages, gun registration leading to confiscation, taxes that will impoverish everyone except the welfare queens, and an army armed with spitballs.
Precisely because a lot of big Democratic ideas have been implemented, I don't think a huge transformation is going to be required in order for the party to be successful in the future. Instead, Dems should be focused on preserving and improving the effective parts of those programs, and on addressing some of the big unsolved problems still out there.
Some of the key ideas that come to mind are:
- Meaningful ideas for social security reform
- Improving access to health care and reducing costs, without impacting the quality of outcomes
- Returning fiscal discipline to Washington
- Formulating a foreign policy that is agressively focused on reducing the terrorist threat
In many cases, producing successful initiatives in the above arenas may involve incorporating some ideas that are traditionally "Republican" or at odds with parts of the base (for example, it's probably not possible to "fix" social security without making some adjustments to the benefit structure; and a pure anti-war platform isn't going to get the job done on the foreign policy front). Instead of turning away from every controversial element in each proposal, the Dems should seek the best ideas in the best interest of the country. Having a real, coherent platform that the country can believe in is simultaneously the best way to be able to advance and defend many of the core liberal principles that we value highly.
An interesting concept.
I wonder what he means by that?
He clearly knew that if he had bitten into the active racism of Kanye or Jesse that he would be through as a potential national figure, so I give him that much credit.
It will be interesting to see how he defines 'indifferent', as time progresses. I wonder if he will follow his enlightened self-interest and seek to be a leader for all of America or if we will choose the easy route and and just be yet another ethnic pimping 'leader'?
The question of whether or not we might have acted more strenuously to a similar crisis in White suburbs on Long Island is an interesting one. I don't think of myself as racist, but I felt somewhat less connected to the people of New Orleans than I might have felt to people who are more like me.
It's an attitude I'd like to adjust if I can. But I'd be lying not to say that it's possible that that sort of thing might have played a role in the slow-footed government reactions.
Therefore, I'm not particularly bothered by Obama's observation. I don't think he's race baiting.
Suppose a Republican comes along, say Condi or Giuliani, who can marginalize the haters (now that Bush has gone home to Crawford, this is 2009, remember...) and starts implementing:
Meaningful ideas for social security reform
Improving access to health care and reducing costs, without impacting the quality of outcomes
Returning fiscal discipline to Washington
Formulating a foreign policy that is agressively focused on reducing the terrorist threat
Number 1, social security reform, has to be addressed by the next administration, simply because the Democrats can't go on being irresponsible in not addressing it.
Number 2 sounds like a soundbite. However, I'm sure that the CATO institute and Heritage have all sorts of white papers chock full of ideas on this.
Number 3 sounds like its tailor made for the next Republican administration after the Bush spending binge.
Number 4 is present Administration policy.
If any or all of these get implemented by a center right Republican Administration that enjoys broad popular support, you guys are out of running room.
In other words, the Sith Lord (that would be Rove, Karl) strikes again...
By accepting the false claim that Federal response was slow, which it was not, you are ceding a great deal of the argument to the lefty whackjobs. Do not paly to their false tune. The Federal response was rapid, massive and historically so by any honest standards.
As for what I saw on TV, all I saw were Americans who needed help, some of whom were acting very badly. You are very honest about your quesiton, however I am certain that if a large catastrophe isolated parts of LI as was NOLa and Miss., the response would be very similar.
One the reasons for Republican successes is that they for the most part have had a coherent message that they have been able to frame in positive terms. It is the Democrats who for the most part have been reactive (and therefore scattered) in their positions, which they have framed in negative and oppositional ways, as Leon has stated very well.
Exhibit A is the debate over Justice Roberts. Instead of complimenting the President's pricipled choice, which might have encourage as similar choice by the President the second time around, they are headed for a futile protest, the shrillness of which can only further turn off voters - a losing tactic.
Of course, we have on both sides, the single interest groups who thrive on hyberbole and bombast, but eventually (I hope sooner rather than later), the American people will tire of this constant agitation, at which point a positive Republican message will trump the Democratic "nattering nabobs of negativity".
You said:
<blockquote....let's hope that the fresh, open young man we've seen so far is being taught the ropes by the Democratic leadership.</blockquote>
I'd posit that this is exactly the problem with Sen. Obama. In his public statements, whenever he is addressing a national audience, he manages to find some soothing tone of voice and says things that many people of both parties can agree with. His convention speech was masterful and similar to things that Bush and Colin Powell have been saying for years.
But under the tutelage of race-baiters, partisan hacks, and republican haters, Obama is letting himself devolve into another grievance spouting tool of the left.
It's quite disappointing, but good to know that he's damaging himself enough to ruin future electoral possibilities. The more he spouts off like Al Sharpton, Ted Kennedy, and a gussied up Kayne West, the less we have to worry about VP Obama.
First, all of my "big ideas" are soundbites. I have some possible ideas about all of them, but there are a lot of people out there that are smarter than me and who have more time and more access to all of the useful information that would be essential to crafting good policy. So I'm not trying to suggest policy, I'm trying to suggest direction.
I agree that if a Republican administration were to successfully tackle our big domestic issues while maintaining an effective anti-terrorism policy, that would put the Democrats in a bad place. I just think it's exceedingly unlikely to happen.
For example, given the state of the deficit, the costs of the ongoing war on terror, and the fact that fixes to entitlement programs that the American people are likely to accept are all long term, it's hard to imagine a fiscal policy that balances the budget without raising some taxes. It will be hard for either party to constrain spending (as we've seen recently), which will have to be done, but the Dems won't have to engage in warfare with simultaneous warfare with their base to make up the revenue to close the gap.
Similarly, I think Iraq is a lose-lose proposition for Republicans at this point. If things go badly, Democats will hopefully be able to develop a reasonable alternative to the status quo, and the issue will be an anchor around Republican's necks. If things go well, by '08, hopefully the Dems can probably just get behind the working strategy, which will largely moot it, I think, and re-focus on Domestic issues.
Besides tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts, what is the coherent Republican message that they have actually succeeded in implementing? Spending discipline? Don't make me laugh. Family Values? Good two word phrase but it doesn't really mean anything as far as real government policy. Wishful thinking is not a coherent message and there is no reasonable economist (not even the President's) who will claim that we are going to grow our way out of our current deficit. The crowning domestic achievement of the President's first term was a distinctly liberal policy--prescription drugs for medicare. And for a party that once wanted to eliminate the Department of Education No Child Left Behind is an interesting initiative (unless it is, as I suspect, intended to destroy, not improve, public education).
In the lead Clinton is blamed for letting the .com bubble get out of hand leading to a mild recession (the budget surplus isn't even mentioned) but the fact that the laissez faire capitalism of the twenties led to the catastrophy of the great depression is ignored.
But you have such a good screed going, I see no reason to interrupt you with facts. Carry on.
My oh my oh my. President Bush is really upsetting true conservatives (you know, the Reagan type conservatives) so much so that a prominent conservative is now calling for the impeachment and prosecution of President Bush, Paul Craig Roberts.
My god, if Paul was a nobody and posted his article directly to RedState, he'd be banned for his imflammatory language about Bush.
But who needs a crazy conservative like Roberts anyway? What does he know?
Sorry to bother you all with this conservative nut - Paul Craig Roberts. Here is another alarmist article where he suggests the federal government is grabbing for more and more power and destroying more and more of our liberties.
(WARNING - The Nut uses a Hitler and Stalin analogy)
What kind of nut is this? And I thought the fruitcakes only exist on the liberal side!
But your posts are both off topic and disruptive. You forget that when you link to a guy's website, the rest of us can look and plainly see exactly how "conservative" he is. Your One Bite.
That you've already been given your one bite. So, toodles.
As a left leaning Independant I can't agree more with Leon.
Its getting better but most of what is coming out of the Left is still lots of whinning and vitriol language.
I was surprised and dismayed at how organized the Republicans were in November of 2004. I remember Republicans in my office getting calls on election day reminding them to vote!
At the time I could hardly imagine the Democrats allowing a pro-life Democrat speak at a rally but the Republicans let John McCain and Rudy Juliani (both pro-choice Republicans) speak at the RNC in 2004.
The Dems are kidding themselves if they think they can make gains in 2006 and win back the White House in 2008 by relying solely on the deep blue states.
The Dems have work at appealing to a broader range of voters. Maybe this explains Hillary's rush to the center?!
The major problem for the Democrats is simple to diagnose, but almost impossible to put into practice. The Republican Party as represented by George W. Bush has stolen their entire agenda.
Do you think the Federal Government can solve all the world's problems? Hey - let's have massive new Federal Agencies like the TSA and Homeland Security! Like multi-culturalism? Bush has embraced it to the max, even hosting Ramadan celebrations in the White House. Like big farm bills? Bush does too. Want to spend major bucks rebuilding the Gulf after a hurricane? No problem! Bush is on board! Wasteful domestic spending on 'ear marks' to bring home pork to local districts? Bush is your man!
Bush even supported affirmative action - if done right that is. Bush supported civil unions for homosexuals. Abortion? Bush refuses to have a 'litmus test' for appointees. At the same time, he has said that abortion can't be outlawed in the US at this time until the culture changes. He sound remarkably 'pro-choice' in the Kerry sense of the term. Socialized medicine? With the Medicare expansion, Federal spending accounts for almost 50% of health care. Illegal immigration? Bush loves illegal immigrants.
As for the war, how can the Democrats get any running room on that? Democrats LOVE nation-building wars. It's one of their specialties. They can't very well complain that the Iraq War was unjustified and the bombing of Serbia was - now can they? In fact, the Dems are as committed to spreading Democracy and freedom through military force as the Bush White House could ever be.
So much for a 'peace party.'
The only room to run against Bush is to the Right. But, the slavish devotion to such things as full homosexual rights and abortion gets in the way. The Dems need a candidate who can run as a credible outsider. One who can steal the Republican base that is increasingly disenfranchised.
Most Americans are conservative. They are also increasingly angry with a President who talks right and governs left. The Dems could really, really hammer the Republicans by moving hard right, much like Kennedy did in 1960.
Will they do it? I doubt it. As long as they keep on their current course, which is trying to gain traction by running farther and farther to the left, they are doomed. That is not a good thing for conservatives, because that frees up all that space in the middle for our candidates to move leftward in search of the ever elusive 'moderate vote.'
The bleeding hearts have always erred on the side of their emotional impulses. Look how well the insane Bush-bashing panned out for them in 2004! Of course, the outcome of the 2006 elections will depend more upon circumstances such as oil prices and the state of the economy than anything else. Back-pocket and local issues, as usual, are likely to dominate voters' minds come November '06. If the Dems are relying on a national referendum á la failure in Iraq, I believe they are severely kidding themselves. They have nothing to offer other than withdrawal and cannot avoid their own hypocrisy by way of their initial support for the invasion. Sure, the public seems to have lost much of their support for OIF, but this war still is not causing their sons to be drafted into battle. Now, those oil prices will be a concern for incumbent Republicans, fair or not.