At the risk of sounding a bit Rumsfeldian, the right answer to the wrong question is still the wrong answer.
I, and others, have been pleading, begging, cajoling, hammering Democrats for years to show backbone. But, no organism develops a backbone if it does not have a back.
Both pre and post election, the blogs and the airways have been filled with excellent, albeit often contradictory, analyses about which policy road Democrats should travel. To regain the House, and hold the White House and Senate in 2012, should they pursue a more progressive agenda, or slink toward a minimalist, centrist posture?
That is, did the Democrats lose because they were too progressive, or not progressive enough?
It is the wrong question.
No matter how that is 'resolved', the argument is itself a symptom of the Democrats' more basic infirmity. Unless Democrats recognize they have more fundamental problems, and fix them, nothing will happen.
Democrats and progressives can complain and wail, but nothing will change until they create the political environment required to achieve their vision. I call that 'political space'.
Dangerously, Democrats especially believe that they actually have said or done all that follows. Like addictions of any kind, the first step is to acknowledge the problem.
We know why Republicans lie. Their programs and policies are designed to benefit the elite few at the expense of the many. They cannot win elections to enact those policies unless they lie about their benefits or instill fear about the motives and integrity of their opponents.
Democrats are afraid to tell the truth. Why?
Problem #1: No Mission. No Narrative. No Political Strategy.
A mission provides clarity and a compass. Democrats have neither. Republicans have both.
Democrats have no political strategy. None. They have no articulated mission, no narrative that embellishes that mission and resonates with the American people, and no political strategy to achieve that mission. Democrats have a jumble of different policies to address this or that problem, sometimes very good policies, but no points of reference to a narrative or a mission that elevates the policies to lofty purposes within a framework of American history and simplifies and amplifies their messaging.
One cannot run a company of 50 people, much less a country of 350 million, without an overarching mission and a narrative that provides common, positive emotional experiences and reference points. The classic volume describing the "great" enduring companies, Built to Last (Collins and Porras), describes the key characteristics of successful organizations.
Surprise: Profits are not the core value of the great companies, but they make more profits over a sustained time than their competitors. That may sound odd or counterintuitive, but the facts demonstrate that basing strategic decisions on a company's mission, its reason for existing, is a far more profitable strategy.
Analogously, although inextricably linked, political strategy is about much more than elections. A failed, or non-existent political strategy narrows the 'political space' in which officeholders have to act, without seeming to jeopardize their own careers blindly. Too many deals need to be struck. Special interest money becomes too much of a necessity. The human impulse for self-preservation prevails.
Urging, cajoling, asking or demanding that officeholders take repeated risks to their careers in that environment is a fools' errand. If it takes a Superman to fight a "never-ending battle for truth, justice and the American way", it is not going to happen.
Like many others, I have puzzled over Democrats' inability to set the political dialogue (even when they controlled both Houses and the Presidency!), to convey a narrative that resonates with the American people, to attack the Republicans instead of defending themselves against their inane attacks, to demand Republican accountability and to display Republican hypocrisy.
Democrats do not even credit its importance. Liberal media such as MSNBC does not get it. In Built to Last, Collins and Porras distinguish between clock-building and time-telling. The great companies are the clock-builders. Democrats are time-tellers, or, in political terms, they believe they can conduct polls (see below), determine "what time it is", and formulate policies accordingly.
By contrast, all Republicans -- officeholders and voters -- know their mission: "small government, low taxes, little regulation, strong defense, god". Their narrative is of the Founders, not just what they say they said, but also the times in which they lived -- shopkeepers, pioneers, individual effort and reward -- and liberty (or freedom). [Note the great opportunity here. Nothing in the Republican mission is about delivering results.]
Since there is no competing narrative about working together to overcome hardships, the melting pot, the wonders of a Constitution that can adapt to changing conditions -- even correcting some of its own original sins like slavery and womens' voting -- the separation of church and state, the multiple values in the Preamble of liberty and justice, of a common defense and the general welfare, the Republican narrative thrives.
And, note how Democrats cower and/or defend themselves every time a piece of the Republican narrative is hurled against them or their policies.
On a more concrete level, Democrats also fail to tell more accurate narrative about how the economy works. We do not have, nor have we ever had, a laissez-faire economy. There is a role for government, for public-private partnerships, and the private sector. Not overly centrally managed, but not chaotic. That's how we became the world's number one economy. [when we lurched backwards under the disastrous Bush Administration -- you lost your job and your home and your security.] The fight is not over government-run vs. free markets. It is between a mixed economy (public, public-private, and private) with its parts in harmonious balance vs. the chaos of unregulated markets. More simply -- rebalancing vs unregulating. Capiche?
And, there is no narrative about the role of government. One nearly choked listening to the President on 60 Minutes indicating that we regulate "in collaboration" with big private interests. I am not even certain which side of the ledger I would support if the choice is between no regulation and regulating in collaboration with industry. The latter may be the worst of both worlds -- no regulation, but the appearance of it. What ever became of the concept of "counterveiling power", with daily examples in drug, food, mining, road, automobile, children's toys and, now, financial protections against the whims and proclivities of amoral (not immoral, but amoral) profit-maximizing corporations?
Problem #2: Misuse/Reliance on the Public Opinion Polling
Democrats follow the polls rather than work to move them in their direction.
That, in part, arises from having no mission, no narrative and no political strategy. For Democrats public opinion polling IS strategy. For reasons beyond the scope of this article, obtaining accurate information from public opinion polling about peoples' views is an inherently flawed exercise. Yet, that is what Democrats place almost biblical reliance upon.
Republicans do the opposite. They have a position, and figure out what to do to move sentiment in that direction. With the help of FOX, they also create news.
Democrats demonstrate no appreciation of the power of unconscious mind, that 98% of our decisions are emotional (not in the sense of frenzied, just instinctive), and we then quickly rationalize those decisions to ourselves. Since we are all, therefore, poor reporters of what drives our decisions, public opinion polling -- even if done with exquisite controls on sampling randomness and size, careful unbiasing of question structure and sequence, and so forth -- cannot really tell politicians what motivates voters nor, importantly, how to connect with voters to create the political space necessary to move their programs.
Take one example. Every year polls ask voters whether they like and approve of negative campaigning. Every year voters say "no" in overwhelming numbers. Every year negative campaigning works. (Karl Rove and Newt Gingrich have built entire careers on it). If public opinion polling cannot get this totally non-partisan question correct, why would one believe anything those polls tell us?
Want another? In 2004 I asked senior strategists in the Kerry campaign why they were not attacking Bush/Cheney for the grossest failure of diligence and strength in American history -- 9/11. The answer: public opinion polling told them that independent voters did not like hearing the President attacked like that!
Today, the President believes that public opinion polls that report that overwhelming majorities want the parties to work together will mean that his political power will rise if he holds out his hand and the Republicans reject it. Yep, just like that strategy worked for the last 2 years. You betcha.
Public opinion polling also told House Democrats not to engage in a broad investigation of the rogue Bush Administration. People wanted them to handle their problems. So, they didn't. Another great strategic choice, wasn't it? Polls say the same thing now for the House Republicans. But, they will anyhow.
Prior to the election, Democrats cringed in fear of forcing a vote on tax cuts for all income below $250,000 only (the rich also get that part of the tax cut, by the way). Why? The blue-dogs thought that they would be hammered, successfully, for not insisting that the top 2% also get a tax cut on all their income. See how well that strategy worked?
Problem #3: The Unpardonable Absence of a Democratic Attack Machine.
I, and others, have been writing about this for years, most recently in an article with that very title (Rather than make all the same points here, I invite those interested to read that piece). So long as there is no price the Republicans pay for lying, for attacking, why would they stop? And, so long as they relentlessly keep that up, how can a feeling of good will and trust to any of their targets be maintained?
When a rightwing hack like Andrew Breitbart puts together a deliberately misleading film clip of Shirley Sherrod, an unknown public servant in the Department of Agriculture, and the White House -- the most powerful office in the world -- hastens to fire her without inquiring into the facts because they fear a radio/TV talk show host will be parading this nonsense on TV that night, what more evidence is required to show the impact of this glaring deficit in the progressive quiver?
Solutions I. Creating 'Political Space' for Progressive Policies.
Democrats/progressives need to articulate a set of principles and a narrative based upon those principles that resonates with the American people. A good source to start is the Preamble: liberty, justice, common defense, general welfare, and so forth. It is not just rooted in the Constitution, it IS the mission statement of the Constitution (that Republicans NEVER quote because it contains justice and general welfare).
From that 'catechism', we do not leap to policy solutions, but rather construct a narrative. It is a story of what America is, and how it has grown into the world's most powerful nation. That story of the melting pot, of a Constitution so rich and prescient that it is able to grow along with the nation, touches far more psyches, and makes many more people feel included in the American family than the exclusive mantra of the Republicans.
It is also a narrative of collective responsibility to create opportunity, of the preciousness and precariousness of democracy that must be defended not only when it is easy, but when it is hard, of the key roles of government to invest in and regulate the economy for the common good, which is how we have been doing it since the Great Depression when we achieved our greatness, and so forth.
Unlike the Republican narrative, it is a true story based upon historical facts. It answers the question who built this country quite differently. Republicans say "they (i.e., the privileged, white elite) did". Our narrative should tell the truth: "we all did". From the sweat of slaves brows, to the aches in waves of immigrants back muscles, to pioneers seeking a better life for their families, to migrant farm workers, to individuals and groups who stood for what was right when power was directed against them, to a responsive and involved government that saved capitalism--and thus economic freedom--many times from its own excesses and a government that has invested in human capital and public goods such as roads, bridges, a legal system and regulatory agencies, to entrepreneurs who dared to strike off in new directions..."we all did".
A grand committee of thousands will not accomplish this task. A small group who do not poll, but who instead understand how the human brain works (e.g., Drew Westen, David Domke, Joe Becker, Valerie Tarico) convening perhaps a group of 15, ought to be able to articulate the catechism and the narrative within a couple of weeks. (It is not hard, it just requires careful work and expertise).
And, then, everyone needs to start using it. Over-and-over-and-over-and-over again.
Otherwise, calls for showing backbone will elicit no response. No organism has a backbone that does not have a back.
Solutions II. Stop Relying on Public Opinion Polling
Believe in the principals, develop policies to reinforce the narrative, be creative. In "Built to Last", the mantra is to preserve the core, but to innovate.
Change communications' strategies. For the most part, this will require doing a complete house-cleaning of the 'strategists' Democrats have employed for years. (One, in the same article, referred to herself as "leading Democratic strategist" and "Martha Coakley's pollster"--you remember, the Massachusetts attorney-general who blew a 25+% point lead to lose Ted Kennedy's Senate seat to a little known Republican whose only prior national exposure was as a centerfold). Or, at least, make sure that new-age strategists, with these precepts in mind, run the show.
The communications' goal needs to be to create political space for the (hopefully) sensible policies Democrats/progressive want to enact. It is not to ask public opinion polls to report what people think they want, and design a strategy to address those because the polls themselves are fatally flawed.
Solution #3: Create a Democratic Attack Machine
One need not, nor would I advocate or support, the Republican method of lying, misleading, libeling opponents or their policies. But, truth is itself a progressive policy, and costs less and is more potent than fiction.
Moreover, since the Republicans are lying hypocrites, repetitive exposure can be achieved without adopting their tactics.
As Harry Truman said, "I don't give'm hell; I just tell the truth and they think it's hell".
And, they can attack the mainstream media for treating two competing arguments -- one true, the other a lie -- as if they should have equal weight.
The big, overarching problem, however, is that Democrats must first understand they have this big problem, and want to act upon it. And then donors are going to have to step up, big time, to fund the solutions on a sustained basis. Republican donors have no problem because their success pays them back financially with lower taxes, lax regulations, and so forth, many times over their investment. And, they have been at this for 40 years.
In the end, though, this will cost the Democratic donors less too. It will improve the odds, and thus reduce the money required, to elect candidates. And, a progressive resurgence might go so far as to pass a Constitutional amendment that says that money is not speech and that corporations are not people for purposes of first Amendment rights.
And, at least it will not cost us, as it has the Republicans, our souls.
Mr. Abrams is correct, it's time to stop quibbling, unite, and fight back!
Thanks to Tony Coehlo (sp?), Bill Clinton, Terry McAuliffe and Rahm Emanuel, in the early 90's the party moved away from being an organization that was pretty good at developing and electing candidates but lousy at raising money to being an organization that was very good at raising money but lousy at developing and electing candidates. When Howard Dean tried to return the party to its political roots, he was savaged by the Clintonistas.
Face it. he Democratic party has a strategy; its to raise money
The DLC-controlled Democratic Party gives lip service to these and all populist issues, because like the Republican Party, the DLC works for the benefit of transnational corporations. Each party uses high-priced public relations firms, with spinmeisters crafting sophisticated propaganda campaigns to con voters into believing what isn't true. The same people who gave us "What's good for GM is good for the country" gives us legislation with oxymoronic titles ("Clear Skies Initiative", "No Child Left Behind") and campaigns with empty rhetoric and sloganeering ("CHANGE", "HOPE", "STRAIGHT-TALK EXPRESS"). All calculated to convince the left and the right within each party that their party's candidate shares their positions.
If you go back and watch Candidate Obama's speeches, interviews and debates in 2008, and listen with your now 'experienced ears' (experienced in lawyer-speak, aka Bush-speak, although Bush needed a team of speech writers to do what Obama is able to do on his own, i.e., think on his feet), I think you'll see that Obama spoke carefully and precisely to give people the sense of what they wanted to hear to get their vote.
Obama got into office by misleading Democratic voters. He ran to the left of Hillary Clinton. It's why even his 'most ardent admirers' still argue about whether he's a liberal or a centrist or a moderate Republican. He convinced centrists that he was a centrist. He convinced liberals he was a liberal posing as a centrist. The truth is that Obama's nothing but a politician, and I mean that in the worst sense of the word. In the 'used car salesman' sense. It turns out that doing what's right for transnational corporations is what Obama is about, and trying to sell it as good for Americans is what he does afterwards. He's the epitome of the 1950s Republican, "What's good for GM is good for America." He did a snow job on everybody.
KEEP READING
Obama, DLC-Democrats and Republicans have been gaming our government to deliver (and to receive, by way of contributions to their campaign war chests) more of the same. At a time when reregulating, nationalizing banks, businesses and industries (OIL) is obvious to everyone, politicians and corporate media are collaborating in Kabuki theater to drive it from the front pages and off of Americans' minds.
Obama was elected because more voters than ever in the history of the nation thought he was offering a new way. Beyond what we'd been doing for the past 30 years, and that goes for both Republicans and Democrats. And what had Democrats been doing?
KEEP READING
That's certainly the DLC's rhetoric.
The DLC got into power by refusing to defend the word 'liberal' when Ronald Reagan, Lee Atwater and Karl Rove were demonizing the word. Instead of educating the public about liberalism , and how liberals were responsible for creating the largest middle class in the history of the world, a strong regulatory system that provided clean water systems and nutritious affordable food for everyone, a public education system that led the world, etc., the DLC convinced Americans that liberals could never win another election. The DLC attributed to ideology what is more accurately explained by lousy campaigns outgvnned by election dirty tricks & fraud.
When informed of the issues, most Americans agree with liberal policies. Neither they nor I would characterize themselves as far-anything or extreme, but mainstream . For example, nobody likes the idea of abortion, but most Americans do not want the government involved if they find themselves in the predicament of an unwanted pregnancy. And if you frame it as, "You like to k!ll babies?!?! ?!?!", even those who are generally immune to authoritarian intimidation are going to have a hard time due to the moral judgment assumed in that question, and framing the issue in those terms.
If the Bush years taught us anything, it's that anyone can sell anything to Americans, if you're stolid and relentless in your sales pitch and tactics. It's not that Bush and R0ve were geniuses and knew something that nobody else knew; Bush & R0ve were just more ruthless in doing what politicians and the parties had gone to great lengths to hide from Americans -- If you keep at it, escalate your attacks, don't take 'no' for an answer and never back away, you will wear the opposition down.
Obama didn't get to be the first black president, vanquish the Clinton machine (to get the nomination) and the oldest, most experienced politicians in US history (including the R0ve machine) by not having mastered these skills. Nor do Democratic politicians (more incumbents than ever, in office longer) not know how to do it. How do you think Democrats managed to keep impeaching Bush and Cheney off the table, have us still reelecting them and not marching on Washington with torches and pitchforks?
Obama and Democrats know how to do it -- They don't want to do it.
Tax cut expiration: "The middle class and poor took it in the face this recession. Now I'm asking the rich for three cents on the dollar after they've made $250,000. For the Republicans to vote against that is shameful and unpatriotic."
Jobs: We work and work and work for bipartisanship and the R's vote against the very things they agreed to. They are masters of bait and switch. They can't be trusted with serious business of governing.
START Treaty: By grandstanding and threatening to hold this up they provide aid and comfort for enemies of the United States, etc. etc.
First you need to keep politics out of this. Anytime you attack a group or person without documented proof, you sound weak.
Messaging is one thing, What the Progressives need to work on is listening. Listening to what the public wants, instead of telling them what they want and then explain they are to stupid to know what they want. I would say a general lack of listening is a big problem for the Progressives, and for the Republicans too.
And, btw, the vast majority of the public wanted REAL health care reform and REAL financial reform. If the dems had given it to us they wouldn't have lost the House and they wouldn't have to worry about 2012 either.
Let us not debate love, envy, posture or hate. But?
Fall in line. Spend the money, form the committee.
Let the good works begin. It is exciting. I am proud of the H-Post for having the courage to so publish.
Finally here, a person has written a qualifying and timely process truth.
One, that causes reflection over projection.
Kudos Mr. Abrams! Good job.
You sound like President Obama's promise during the campaign..
"WE are the ones we have been waiting for."
Just what do the Democrats stand for anyway?
I've said many times that the power of the old Democratic coalition has been severely diminished with the decline of the labor movement in America. Back in the day, the powerful constituencies of the Democratic Party determined what the agenda of the Party was to be. Civil Rights, worker's rights, consumer rights, middle class growth and opportunities - all of these grew as the narrative of the Democratic Party. Expectations to support this agenda were extant - failure to do so would be political suicide within the Party.
Many decry the 'political machine', as it were, but this 'machine' also created the agenda, the goals, and the narrative for politicians to work within. And it was effective and directed.
The constituencies also provided the 'backbone' for these politicians to act on their behalf. If they performed, they were supported in the next election. Today, politicians don't have constituencies pushing them. The expectations aren't clear. Politicians are encouraged to run to bolster the 'numbers' of votes available to Democrats, not to follow an agenda or platform. The pressure is now coming from legislative leadership, not the folks and constituencies back home.
What we need to do is study the past. We need to get rid of the hot-shot pollsters and so-called consultants and experts and rebuild a coalition. The issues haven't changed over the last 50 years. The politicians have.
Now in power Obama uses poor strategies, overall. He misses so many opportunities to make huge changes. The point is this: He WON because people wanted what he said in the campaign to be enacted. Therefore, it has been proven that telling the truth (to some degree at least, I am not saying Obama is a true leftie, but he was more left during the campaign) works. The idea that the left has to always lose because it always has to compromise and please "middle america" is bunk. A populist president who pushed hard on a liberal agenda wouldn't do so bad IF THE MESSAGING AND STRATEGIES WERE AUTHENTIC AND SMART. This is what I had hoped Obama could do. Be the first president in a long time to be smart enough to "light up" the real american spirit, to really change things for the better. He lit us up during the election, so it was a good assumption to make.
However, the only thing he has lighted up so far is our frustration!
Then claiming most Americans wanted this, is a lie at best.
The problem with Obama is that he promised everything. He always does, but one has to notice he leaves out any details. Its because he would rather campaign and give speeches than actual work.
And who are the "you guys" that aren't listening in your mind?
And who originated the trope "Most Americans want....."?
Pollsters, that's who.
Our systemic reliance on poll driven politics and media commentary seems to be a good part of the dysfunction that is strangling the process - and diminishing the public conversation.
Let's talk policy specifics, strategy, goals, political philosophy etc.
Conversations based on pretending to know what 50% of 350 million people think are pointless......
Is the reason they have weak strategies because they are ignorant of what really works or is it because they don't want to win because their real master is virtually the same as that of the Republicans? Are the innocently ignorant of good strategies and they just need to be shown how, or are they purposely enacting losing strategies? Doesn't it have to be one or the other?
You describe the problem well. But what is the motivating force that causes the dems to be self-destructive and to do the opposite of what needs to be done to succeed? You have to question their motives, that is key. I believe that the corporate thugs supported Obama (and Clinton) because they are in many ways a weak dem party in charge serves a huge purpose: it can still serve as the enemy (which is essential for the repubs to have) and at the same time be impotent when it comes to mounting a real challenge to the status quo. And it puts repubs off the hook for a bit.
And the more the dems move to the right, the more the right moves to the right. The overall strategy serves the interests of the right.
If the repubs can convince people to vote against their own interests, surely we can convince them to vote FOR their own interests! I don't believe we have ever really tried. Common-sense strategies and methods work best. The truth works the best of all.
"...the dems much first understand they have this big problem, and want to act on it..."
So we are to assume they are not aware of the problem, and if they were they would simply have to be motivated to act on it? See, this is the problem. I tend to want to say "they aren't stupid and naive about their strategies, therefore they must not want to enact a successful strategy". However, part of me realizes that yes, as smart as humans are, we are also as dumb as rocks when it comes to seeing our own issues. Perhaps they really don't get how weak they are, and why. Or perhaps it is a matter of "real politics", that is that politicians go in idealistic then become enmeshed in a system of game-playing that is rigged.
So..
1) they intentionally lose because moneyed interests rule and they don't mind that
2) they just need to be taught some winning strategies
3) they (or some at least) really do want to win, but see any winning strategy as being self-defeating because they won't win elections.
I think: all of the above, and more! ack!!!! it's a mess, not easy to figure out.