A prescription for Democratic relevancy
Here’s a top-10 list off the top of my head. It is not going to make a lot of people on the left happy…
1. Terry MacAuliffe. Gone. Now. Quickly and publicly. Bury the DLC with him. Replace him with someone who isn’t slimy or connected to Clinton.
2. Never mention 2000 again. It’s way over. It sucks, but there is no doubting Bush’s mandate now. It’s all about looking forward. Oh and Bush isn’t stupid. Stop with that (I know I have been guilty of that). Bush may be the best politician we have ever seen. Admit it and move on.
3. Find a candidate today for 2004 and unify behind him/her. Everything for the next 2 years must be about getting this person to the White House. It ain’t going to be easy. We need a DC outsider and someone who can out plain-talk Bush. We need to convince any other Democrat that has hopes for the White House to abandon them now. If they don’t abandon those hopes (Lieberman and Kerry could be problems) marginalize them. With what I know right now, that person should be Howard Dean.
4. Quietly thank Daschle and Gephardt for their work and then kick them to the curb.
5. The next minority leader of the Senate should be a strong woman, but NOT! NOT! Hillary Clinton. Choices: Stabenow (opposed Iraq), Cantwell, Murray, or if you really want to get nutty, Boxer (at least she has cojones). The House Minority Leader should be young and of a minority. I recommend Harold Ford Jr..
6. Get a goddamn message. Stick to it and fight for it. Make it the economy, jobs or education. Co-opt something from the Republicans. I don’t know, just package it, market it, and beat it into the ground (see Bush Tax Cuts)
7. We are now the official opposition party. Act like it. Oppose! Be decisive. If it goes against the party base, oppose it. If it goes against the center and to the right, oppose it! If the other side yells at us and calls us un-American, yell back. If the media tries to bury a story, keep screaming about it. Blame everything that goes wrong on the other party (just don’t whine about it). We have nothing to lose.
7a. Pretending to be on the President’s side will not win any Democrat a national office. Look at the TX and MO Senate races. Kirk and Carnahan both ran as supporters of the President while the President supported their opponents. Why would an undecided voter pick the person that says they support the President but isn’t supported by the President himself? Tell me how that strategy wins elections?
8. Cater to the base. Take “liberal” off the list of dirty words. Embrace it. Re-define it (and by this I mean find a way to make it appealing to the party center as well). Find out where the base is hurting (jobs? education?) and form a platform around it. The “haves vs. have-nots”/”Us vs. them” populism a la Al Gore won’t work outright, but there has to be some way to package that (make it seem that everyone is on the road to being a “have”).
9. Bill, Hillary and Al, sad to say, are no longer assets. They are liabilities. They energize the other side. Everywhere I saw Bill go (FL gov. anyone?) the defeat was miserable. Sorry, but they can’t help us any more.
10. Out-rove Rove. It’s all about being ruthless, calculated, and most importantly centralized. Hire pit-bulls like Carville.
Tell me where I am wrong.
UPDATE: Number 9 as, I expected, is causing a lot of debate. It should. I was angry when I wrote this top-ten and I wrote it right from the gut. I stick by it, but maybe #9 needs some clarification especially on the role of Bill C. I tried to do that in the comments, but I thought I’d C&P those comments here:
Addendum to #9: I so agree with you (see RozK’s comment) about Clinton’s role overseas. I’m not saying that he should go away. Not at all. I’m saying he should stay out of [campaigning in] Democratic politics. I foresee Clinton outdoing Jimmy Carter on the Ex-President as Statesman front. That would be fantastic, and would benefit the entire world in additon to the US. Bill Clinton can still do a lot of good.
As long as Bill Clinton stays active as a front-and-center campaigner in Democratic Politics, however, the ire of the republican base in the area he campaigns in will always focus on him. They could run a monkey and the Republicans will vote for the monkey because it is a vote against Bill. I also do not mean Bill cannot serve as a behind-the-scenes consultant. I think he can do that effectively. Anyway, I like Bill Clinton, I think his treatment by the right was unjust. I think it sucks to have to admit that the right-wing pundits are right about this one, but I am afraid they are.
Perhaps after several successes on the international statesman front and some time out of the spotlight, that right-wing hatred will subside and Clinton can become active again, but why in 2004 should the Democrats give the Republicans something else to rally around?
In regard to Al Gore… I’m still wary about him being a candidate in 2004. He does have 2 things going for him right now, however. Because he holds no office he can claim to be an outsider. Additionally he can really come out from behind the scenes as a strong opposition-leader. Out of all the big-name Democrats, he has the least to lose and the most to gain. If he really takes the gloves off, fights back when the media confronts him , and is able to crystalize all the things the Dems stand for into a coherent message, he will be a force to be reckoned with. With Gore’s sometime nemesis Gephardt leaving the minority leadership (go Pelosi!) there is some sign he may be planning to do something like that.
Possibly number 9. I need to look at more numbers, but Bill is still hihgly regarded in a lot of Dmeocratic locations. Using him to drive up turnout and fundraise may be worth the occasional cheap shot.
Comment by kevin | 11/6/2002
I disagree, Kevin. Rob hit it right on the head. Word for word. I’m not happy about it, but it’s reality. The party needs new blood and new vision.
Comment by Marc | 11/6/2002
God Almighty this is the perfect post. A small problem with #2, I still think Bush is a bit of a puppet, but I accept the spirit of the point.
New blood is going to be tough. Bubba controls the DNC and he isn’t going away. Daschle isn’t going away either. I could possibly see Dick Gephardt stepping aside. God is this a great post.
Comment by Marc | 11/6/2002
I’m ambivalent regarding #9, too, for both Bubba and Al. Gore was the only Dem leader in the past few months to take a stand. If — and this is a huge if — he can ignore the past and re-embrace liberalism without pandering to any and all in his quest to be liked, he might be able to do it.
Bubba for NY Governor in 2006. We need high-profile here to take down Pataki. Eliot Spitzer may be leaning that way, but four years is a very long time.
Someone needs to hire Carville, too, I think. Maybe put him in charge of the DLC?
I’m starting to get past my anger. The leadership was non-existent, and there was no message. I say wait for the body bags to start coming home in large quantities, unless the Shrub is leaving Iraq as his re-election trump card in 2004.
Comment by Scott | 11/6/2002
#9 was adifficult one (I would have voted for Bill again in a heartbeat), but I don’t think that I had any real idea for how much the Clintons can energize the right until I moved down to Texas. There were non-national candidates running against “liberals like Hillary Clinton” down here.
Scott, I think Spizter is a playa. I could see him as Guv of NY or as AG if a Dem wins in ‘04. Don’t tell anyone, but I once even said he could be VP material.
Marc, the term “Bush” refers to the man himself as well as those who surround him. “Bush” is as much a concept as a person.
I also think you are right about how difficult it will be to pry the DNC away from the Clintonites. I think McAuliffe is too big-headed to ever quit voluntarily.
Comment by Rob Humenik | 11/6/2002
Number 6 is the only one that really matters, in my opinion. The rest will follow if the Democrats can find a reason for existing. Otherwise, let’s all just join the Republican party and make things easier.
If you have a real platform that strikes at issues which everyone experiences, and offers real, practical strategies in dealing with those issues, people will be drawn to it. Ultimately, if you accomplish that, it doesn’t matter what name the party has (all though it helps to be one of the big two).
The Democrats can’t spin their wheels on issues that only affect a certain group. Everyone wants to earn a good living and keep as much of it as possible. Everyone wants to live in a safe neighborhood. Everyone wants a quality education available for their family. Everyone wants to feel secure in the world, free from constant violent threats. Everyone wants quality healthcare at a reasonable price. None of those things are dependant on age, race, sex, location or any other real specific demographic.
Show people actions that really benefit their lives, and they will follow, but the Democrats have to have a goal before they can lead anyone to it. If being in power is the only real goal, why should I (or anyone else) give them my vote?
Comment by wKen | 11/6/2002
A Pledge
If, two years from now:
Unemployment is down
The Markets are up
Poverty and homelessness are down
The number of people without health insurance is down
The environment has improved
The energy crisis has abated
We are at peace
Corporate Crime is down
Street Crime is down
There is little or no inflation
Interest rates are down
Personal income rates and buying power for the middle and lower classes are up
MY taxes are down and the budget is balanced
I will foreswear my Liberal ways and vote a straight Republican ticket in 2004.
Are there any Conservatives out there who will make the opposite pledge?
Comment by TCMits | 11/6/2002
Yeah, “Bush” is a powerful corporate entity. Bush the individual has the advantage of low cunning & spitefulness, qualities his handlers put to excellent use. But we Democrats have only ourselves to blame for hist ass-whooping of historic proportions.
CNN has just reported that Gephardt will announce he will not run for Minority Leader. One down, . . .
Comment by Joe | 11/6/2002
Good post - but -
#2 - Really, Bush is a moron. He’s got great people around him: Powell, Rummy, Cheney. They really do a lot of good for him. Is Karl a genius? I don’t know but he’s doing whatever he’s doing better than the Democrats, and that’s really not all that difficult. But for good sakes when I was in DC I listened to quite a bit of C-SPAN radio and Bush is an dolt. When left to his own devices he’s a babbling idiot! I hear a speech he gave in NC while stumping for Dole, and you just can’t believe how dumb that guy sounds when he doesn’t have his speech writers backing him up! He makes Dan Quayle look like… like he’s not as dumb as Bush.
Comment by Palmer Haas | 11/6/2002
I don’t know if I am comfortable with 10.
A suggestion here? Quite frankly I think we could come up with a better platform for the Dems to sell for goodness sakes. I still can’t believe that the current administration caters to the Saudis when 15 out of the 19 hijackers were Saudi, when they use our oil money to build mosques that serve as soap boxes for US haters in the Middle East, when half of Bush’s cronies are profiting from their relationships with countries who think that 9/11 was something the US orchestrated or was put together by Israel, when our immigration policy was changed because of 9/11 but it was only changed for nations like Pakistan and not Saudi Arabia (hello? 15 out of 19?!?!?!?), when Osama managed to escape Afghanistan, when… the list goes on and on and yet nary a peep from the left. Am I alone on this one? I can’t believe that there isn’t a single Dem pounding the desk on the floor of Congress screaming at the top of his lungs “Reagan, Bush I, you and half your administration put us in this mess to begin with!”
I don’t want to sound like this is an indoctrination of Muslim nations, because this is not about Islam. It is about chastising of the Pres for not just placating violent theocracies that hate us but profiting at our expense. For god sakes the Bush family still has business ties to the Bin Laden family. Why the won’t the Dems try to capitalize on something like that? And why do we continue to go thru this ridiculous energy policy of jerking off OPEC. How about cutting our dependecy by any means necessary (not drilling ANWAR, and even if we did drill it wouldn’t solve the big picture, it would just add 3% to domestic production for a little while).
Comment by Palmer Haas | 11/6/2002
The problem with 9: The Republicans will demonize whomever leads the Democrats. Look at how they went after mild mannered Tom Daschle and triple amputee Max Cleland. The Clintons and Gore are used to it. The Clintons, at least, have shown they know how to fight back. I think the odds are Gore has figured it out by now too. It doesn’t make sense to dismiss the only proven National winners we have.
Comment by John H | 11/6/2002
Here’s an interview with the Ragin’ Cajun that covers some of the points brought up here.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/831669.asp
“I think the voters sent a message to the parties. I think Republicans sent a message that, hey, we like our guys. They sent a very clear message. You’ve got to acknowledge that. But Democrats sent a big message too by sitting on their hands saying, “Get in the game here, guys.””
Comment by Marc | 11/6/2002
Amidst your wit, did it occur to you that it might be a good idea to have alternatives rather then “Get a goddamn message”? Moral bankruptcy(Clinton), idea bankruptcy(McAuliffe whining) and win at all costs tactics does not a democratic party make.
Comment by DANEgerus | 11/6/2002
Here’s the problem I have with 9. It means doing exactly what every Right-wing pundit says the Democrats should do. It means dumping one of the best speakers in public life anywhere in the world. It means weakening the power of Clinton to influence the attitude of foreign politicians towards Bush’s foreign policy - if you want to know why Blair has backtracked a little from total servility and is talking about exhausting UN remedies before an attack, the answer is largely Clinton’s bravura performance and rapturous reception at the Labour Party conference. (Apparently he was amazing at Munich a couple of days later as well and helped stiffen resolve there too.) Don’t forget that as well as Clinton the target of media hatred and Clinton the actually deeply compromised real figure, there is also Clinton the icon of hope among the rest of us that Americans sometimes elect something approximating a real statesman.
Comment by RozK | 11/7/2002
I think you’ve nailed it, Rob. Now let’s see if the Democratic leadership is as smart as they think they are….
Comment by Jack Cluth | 11/7/2002
Roz,
I so agree with you about Clinton’s role overseas. I’m not saying that he should go away. Not at all. I’m saying he should stay out of Democratic politics. I foresee Clinton outdoing Jimmy Carter on the Ex-President as Statesman front. That would be fantastic, and would benefit the entire world in additon to the US. Bill Clinton can still do a lot of good.
As long as Bill Clinton stays active as a front-and-center campaigner in Democratic Politics, however, the ire of the republican base in the area he campaigns in will always focus on him. They could run a monkey and the Republicans will vote for the monkey because it is a vote against Bill. I also do not mean Bill cannot serve as a behind-the-scenes consultant. I think he can do that effectively. Anyway, I like Bill Clinton, I think his treatment by the right was unjust. I think it sucks to have to admit that the right-wing pundits are right about this one, but I am afraid they are.
Perhaps after several success on the international statesman front and some time out of the spotlight, that right-wing hatred will subside and Clinton can become active againg, but why in 2004 should the Democrats give the Republicans something else to rally around?
Comment by Rob Humenik | 11/7/2002
I love Scott’s idea to have Clinton run for NY Gov next time round. Mind you, I’d prefer Seamus the lab to Pataki.
Comment by irish | 11/7/2002
Rob,
I sort of take your point, but it is a point about the way the media work to make even vague progressives into demons or klutzes or both. When Michael Foot was Leader of the Labour Party, he wore a dark wool coat to the Remembrance Service at the Cenotaph. The Sun and other rightwing newspapers made up the story that he had worn a donkey-jacket and thus shown typical Left lack of respect to the Queen and the sacred dead. (Unpack that for a second, they 1) lied about what he was wearing and 2) asserted that what he was not in fact wearing would, had he been wearing it, been a symbolic affront - the latter on no particular evidence.) Moreover, in spite of rebuttal, they went on asserting it for the rest of the time he was Leader and for some time afterward. The answer was not for Foot to agonize about every clothing choice thereafter or to pick a new leader, though both came to pass in due course, so much as to talk publicly about media bias and media lies, But of course, if you do that, suddenly you are accused of wanting to introduce the KGB…Right-wingers and their hired liars will do what they do whatever we do - we should do what is right.
Comment by RozK | 11/8/2002
Great comments that cover the whole kitchen EXCEPT the kitchen sink. You left out the one single most important issue upon which the future of the ‘D’s (and the ‘R’s, for that matter) revolve. WAR!!
Swing voters (suburbanites this time) went for ‘R’s and Bush because of his leadership on the WOT and Iraq. We can expect him to still have an active front on the WOT going as 2004 approaches.
The real question for the ‘D’s then is, “What position will they take to diffuse this powerful trump suit?” Right now they seem quit evenly divided all the way down to the grass roots on this issue.
The best the ‘D’s may be able to hope for is a quick and decisive victory for Bush in Iraq and a long lanquishing ‘reconstruction’ during which the American people have the opportunity to realize that the Bush policy has managed to get an ugly tarbaby stuck to us.
Comment by ebunny | 11/8/2002
I think Bush is a lieing FREAK!!!— heres what I think…. 9/11 happened “On their watch.” Bush promised “WMD” in Iraq and failed, he promised the unite rather than to divide and failed. Now he promises a safe America, and after 9/11 happening on his watch, we cannot feel secure. And if the Bush/Cheney adinistration say misleading, untruthful, wrong statements on national T.V. then what are they doing behind closed doors?!?!?! And I’ll answer that for you–They are pathological liars!!
Comment by Wont Tell | 10/18/2004
I think Kerry is the BEST!! I’m 4 him all the way!!! GO KERRY!!!
Comment by Avi | 10/18/2004
Dont vote for BUSH!! He dont know what he’s talking about….he’s trying 2 brain wash america!!!
Comment by Gavyer | 10/18/2004