Do the Democrats Want to Lose?

Do the Democrats want to lose? That seems an odd question to ask. But they do it so well you begin to wonder. Now, they are about to lose to Bush and the grossly unpopular Republicans again on FISA and telecom immunity. But are they really losing? That depends on what your objective is. Let me explain.

The Republican Party is in a death spiral right now and they don't even realize it. Sure, they understand something is wrong but they have no idea what the real cause is. Most of them are still arguing that they failed in veering away from hard right-wing, conservative principles. That's exactly wrong.

The problem for the Republicans is that they have been going to the far right for far too long. Here is what the Republican Party and all of Washington is having trouble accepting -- we are not fundamentally a center-right country, let alone how far right the Republicans have taken us. The idea that we are center-right has been conventional wisdom for so long that no one has remembered to challenge that assumption.

In fact, the American people love their Social Security, believe that a community should help its most downtrodden, and think it is the government's responsibility to help its citizens in times of need. They do not believe that every man should fend for himself and the only remedy government should offer a man in need is a healthy pair of bootstraps. The American people are simply not that cold and uncaring.

Some argue that they should be. That the best remedy is tough love. These people are usually already rich, and almost certainly Republican. And that's the problem. The Republican Party has lost the ability to understand and empathize with the average American voter. They can't feel our pain.

So, this leads to a situation where the Democratic Party -- seemingly through no action of its own -- is about to be the beneficiary of an enormous majority in Congress. It's tempting to say they fumbled, bumbled and mumbled their way into this good fortune because it certainly appeared so.

But let me ask a radical question: Did the Democrats choose to be incompetent in the face of gross Republican mismanagement over the last seven years? The question everyone has been asking for a long time now is how can they keep losing to the most unpopular president in United States history? How can a party on the verge of historic political victories not be able to defeat a enormously unpopular president in his lame duck year? How is that possible?

Here is an answer people haven't considered enough -- they want to lose. You can call it strategic weakness. They never wanted to get out of Iraq. They never wanted to fix any of the problems we have in the country now. Instead they wanted to let them fester into open sores until the American people got so fed up with it that they threw out the Republican bums who were in charge.

I think we give far too much deference to our politicians, as if they are the most magnanimous, well-intentioned folks who always put the needs of their constituents first. The press has become far too credulous. Politicians are often the worst kind of self-aggrandizing, blowhards. And the one thing they care most about is their own power.

Yes, there are well-intentioned, principled politicians. Russ Feingold (D-WI) voted against the Patriot Act when ninety-nine other senators didn't dare question it. Tom Coburn (R-OK) votes down bills based on his fiscal principles all the time. You might or might not agree with the politics of these legislators but there is something to admire about them. However, they are certainly the exception.

What progressive activists couldn't understand about the Democrats when the party refused to fight back on Iraq after the 2006 elections is that these politicians had different objectives than them. The goal of the activists was policy -- they wanted to get out of Iraq. The goal of the Democratic Party was politics -- they wanted to win more elections. Those are two totally different objectives.

So, as their base thought they were losing, in fact, the Democratic Party was winning. No, we didn't get out of Iraq, but the Republicans did crash themselves on the shores of this disastrous policy. By sticking so diligently to their far right positions on Iraq and just about everything else (S-CHIP, Webb's GI Bill, etc.), the Republicans assured their ultimate demise. All the Democrats had to do was step out of the way. The activists saw this as weakness and acquiescence. The Democratic politicians saw it as an opportunity.

This gambit seems to being paying off handsomely so far. The Democratic Party picked up 36 seats in the House and Senate in 2006 and they have added three more in recent special elections. The Democrats have not suffered any significant wounds for their completely ineffectual challenge to the president, while the Republicans are on the verge of being tarred and feathered and run out of town.

Political strategists will study this for years to come -- the win by losing strategy. Only a Democrat could have come up with that.

Young Turks on You Tube

Comments

[Cathexis]

Such a manipulative strategy has a chance only when the party is out of power.

Once the GOP deathlock on power is broken and reversed, it will be interesting to see how teh Dems handle it.

Will they (suddenly) become assertive and competent?

Will they continue to be inept and ineffective?

Will they fall victim to teh same hubris that felle dthe GOP, thinking that once they hold the reins of almost unfettered power they cna do as they will?

I'm almost afraid to find out.

[pmorlan]

Unfortunately for our Party and our country the Democratic politicians were only looking as far as the next election for their "win". Just like our hot shots in business who only make decisions based on short term gain for themselves instead of the long term gain for the company, these Dems. may just have managed to destroy our Party from the inside with their hubris. Oh sure, we will probably do quite well in the 2008 election but down the road there will be a lot of us who will back challengers to those politicians who sold us out or even join a 3rd party. We know that our Dems. betrayed us in the worse way and as they say paybacks are hell.

[WorkingClass]

They don't care if we live or die. They are in it for the money. Just like the Republicans.

[RossalGondamer]

CENK,

Watched your YT vid on this issue - couldnt agree more with your frustration.
take solace-all this will be moot soon enough as H. Con. Res. 362 comes to pass.

[Plus15]

I'm not sure but the possibility exists. It may be like the Stockholm Syndrome - they're more comfortable as losers. Check out Reid, Pelosi, Hoyer they seem hellbent to screw it up. Ever since day one - election day when they won a majority in both houses and the very first thing they announced was "Impeachment was off the table". Why? Why the first utterance? Why with the criminals and anti constitutionalist in power were they not challenged? With the vote the American people very clearly showed they wanted out of Iraq and the Bush team stopped. The result of the Democratic Majority.........NOTHING! No change. Disgraceful.

[shafff]

Giving them too much credit I think, but you've a very interesting view.

[seawolf77]

It's all a sham. How can you explain Richard Nixon, Dan Quale (oops) , all the Bushes except maybe Jeb, Dukakis etc. etc etc. Now we get Obama. Incredible. He's gonna change things! What has he ever changed. The discourse? At least I can point to Hillary and see she tried to change health care and almost did it in spite of the collective stupidity of the country and against almost overwhelming odds. That was a battle. Rove is right. He's a smooth talking idiot lawyer, no more no less. What will they call this country after Obama gets elected. An abomination. Get it? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[oldwiseone]

First Obama changed the lobbyist influence on the primaries, second, Hillary's original health plan gave all administrative control to the insurance providers, was created in secret violating sunshine laws and subsequently she was fined $264,000. You are so funny

[billkarwin]

I disagree with Uygur's opinion piece.

Never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained adequately by incompetence.

[texanna]

Let's be real, shall we? This isn't a strategy of the Democratic Party, it's a strategy of the DLCC! Those are two very different entities with seemingly very different agendas. Unfortunately for the Democratic Party the DLCC didn't tell us what their real agenda would be if the Party elected them to Congress in 2006. No, what they did was let us believe that they heard us and that they would represent us. This is not a strategy for winning re-election in my book. There are real Democrats out there trying to unseat the callous, politically corrupt members of the DLCC and slowly but surely they and the rest of the Part will prevail.

[docpooh]

Wow!!
You have put into words something that I have been considering for a while. Wow. As a life-long Democrat I have been disgusted with the spinelessness of the Dems in Congress, starting with their war vote. I have a litany, "Republicans are evil, Democrats are cowards". Now I know. It has always seemed that the Dems were willing to give the Repugs enough rope to hang themselves while ignoring the cost to the American public (or maybe counting on it)! It's as if they have said, "We know these policies will be devastating for America, so we'll go along with them to show the public just how awful the Republicans are."
Wow.

[KPinSEA]

The American troops who have died in Iraq over the last 4 years would describe this as "dieing so somebody can play political games."

A conscious choice to do this would be treason and should get people lined up in front of a firing squad (next to Cheney and Wolfowitz would be just fine with me) ... doing it without conscious choice just makes you a coward and stooge.

There's a great campaign slogan for the DNC in 2008: "Cowards and stooges, but *not* traitors."

Rah.

[truthynesslover]

John dean said the other night on olberman that this bill is so badly written obama can sign it and then go for prosocution when hes in office.

[falgiano]

the Democrats are PISSING ME OFF! is this what we voted for in 2006?? to have Dems cave to Bush on FISA? it's fucking ridiculous. i'm seriously thinking of changing my affiliation to independent if this shit keeps up. if enough people dump both the Dems and Repubs we may be on our way to a legitimate third party. the Dems infuriate me!

[LongBeachDave]

OK, so maybe there is something to the "win by losing" philosophy, but how many homes were lost to the subprime crisis, how many people suffered the gas crunch pain, how many soldiers lost their lives in Iraq during all this time that we were "winning?" We do have these principles for a reason...we want to see them enacted into law. So perhaps we need to elect politicians who don't immediately think about the next election the first day on the job--if such a person indeed does exist.

[dec8ur]

I guess im loss. for, when growing up, i was told we are a democracy.when i look at these the comments on huffpo i become bewildered verging on disoriented. the republicans not only have little respect for average joe they sometimes show outright apathy, heck contempt, for people like me. now the democrats on the other hand whine and complain "give us the majority and we'll show them" , we give it to them, and keep affirming the majority(with special elections) and what do they do? they spit in our face and bend over for the republicans. and what do the people on huffpo do? "well i guess we dont have a choice, at leas thier not repugs". their are many political parties out thier. if only ten house seats and TWO senate seats went libertarian/green then both parties would have to get off thier laurals

[standard]

The Democrats currently lack a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and a veto-proof majority in either house. In other words: they lack enough votes to stand up to a Republican President. That's why they have backed down so often--and why Uygur's theory, while interesting, is probably wrong. (Even so, if we had a Democratic president, that same slim majority could be powerful.)

In elections, third party candidates tend to keep the major party candidate closest to their own platform from getting elected at all: Bob Barr will weaken McCain this year; Nader helped to defeat Gore in 2000.

A third-party member of Congress can strengthen a major party by caucusing AND VOTING with it (as Bernie Sanders did in the House and does the Senate), but a third-party member who merely caucuses with but votes against the major party (like the quisling, Joe Lieberman) weakens it.

Historically, in our congressional system of government, third parties have played a negative role. Only in a parliamentary system (unlike ours) can they form a coalition government with--and so, readily support and influence--major parties.

Stick with the Democrats! We need a larger majority in Congress--or a Democrat in the White House--to get the job done. The Greens, despite their good ideas, are just a hazard to navigation!

[missusam]

Once upon a time there used to be a two party system, this was changed when Bu$h sr. uttered those infamous words, NWo. Now what we have is the good cop, bad cop routine. Both parties are lobbied hard to make this global nightmare come true. Americans need to wake up Now!

Or the choice will be,

repubs=without grease or dems=with grease either way, we are screwed! WAKE UP PEOPLE