August 06, 2003
Raise Your Hands If You Paid Attention in High School Civics
I have to make a confession. I am a registered Republican. I signed up to do my part in trying to help John McCain get a leg up over Bush in the 2000 primaries. As is obvious, McCain lost, and Bush was elected. Bush was elected not because he was a better candidate, was smarter, or was more honest. Bush was elected largely because he was much better funded, was much more media savvy, and had much of the Establishment backing his candidacy. I have little reason to think that the election in 2004 will be any different.
Now, let's consider a scenario -- none of the current Democratic candidates will stand a chance against Bush. As much as some Democrats (and some registered Republicans) detest this possibility, chances are that it's much more likely than anyone here wants to admit. None of the current Democratic candidates have done much to inspire the imagination of the electorate, save Dean. Dean's an interesting candidate, but unfortunately appears to be like the Chickenhawk in the old Foghorn Leghorn cartoons more often than not. And even if one of these candidates had the class, charisma, and ideas to make a plausible run against Bush (not to imply that Bush has any of the three), they still would lack the financial means and the backing of the Establishment -- media, business, and middle America.
So what are Democrats (and disgruntled Republicans) to do? If we go with the reasonable assumption that Bush will be president for four more years, how do we cut our losses and limit the damage?
The answer is simple and has been simple since the tenth grade -- checks and balances.
A quick refresher -- the executive branch checks the legislative branch with the veto, and it checks the judicial branch by appointing judges. The judicial branch checks both the executive and legislative branches by being the final arbiter of what is constitutional and what is not. The legislative branch checks the judicial branch by confirming judges, and (Pay attention!) it checks the executive branch by overriding presidential vetoes and controlling the funding of the government. Let me repeat that -- the legislative branch is empowered to override the president's veto and the House of Representatives is responsible for the federal purse.
In the case of a hostile president, there's little concerned citizens can do with respect to shoring up the judiciary, but they can create a legislature that effectively neutralizes the president. So, what could a strong opposition legislature have done with Bush's current term? Refuse to pass a large tax-cut. Tell the president that if he wants to go to war, he'll have to pay the troops with some other funds outside the federal budget because the House refused to fund such a war. Refuse to confirm the president's judges. And so forth.
So why are Democrats paying so much attention to a race they are most likely to lose? Would it not make sense to use this attention and other resources to shore up local legislative candidates? One interesting thing to come out of the 2000 election was the Nader traders. While vote trading from Massachusetts to Michigan is illegal, it is not illegal for comfortably Democratic areas to support candidates in areas that are up for grabs. The idea is the same. Don't send your check to Dean, Edwards, or Sharpton. Send it to your local congressional candidate or a distant one if yours is confident of winning. Everyone makes a lot of talk about how Howard Dean is using the Internet to create a coordinated grassroots organization. Why are we not seeing a coordinated grassroots campaign to elect friendly legislators?
I am a registered Republican (who wants rid of Bush). That apparently makes me cold, rational, and very conscious about how I spend my money and time. From this perspective, what makes more sense -- throwing my hard-earned dollars to a presidential candidate who may put on a good show, then lose badly? Or strategically spending my money and time on candidates who will oppose what I dislike about the likely future president? In the first case, I waste both my time and money and gain nothing. A terrible thing for a Republican to do. In the second case, I lose the same time and some money, but I'm more likely to help elect that sixty-seventh Senator who overrides the presidential veto or those extra few Congressmen who refuse to pass a budget that favors the president's legislative agenda.
For me the smarter choice is obvious.
Posted by cjkarr at August 6, 2003 07:39 PMUgh… McCain lost because he couldn’t win enough votes. He was MORE media savvy than Bush. Just ask any journalist covering the race. McCain was their darling. He just couldn’t win votes.
Posted by: CJ at August 6, 2003 08:14 PMMcCain was reporter savvy and the reporters loved his “Straight Talk Express”. Bush was media savvy and had the media convinced of his inevitability long before the primaries. For an example of Bush’s media savvy, take a look at the campaign waged in South Carolina as McCain was coming off quite a bit of momentum. McCain was smarter about the reporters than Bush, but Bush managed to seal up the larger media picture — news, pundits, and advertising.
This election is starting to mirror the prior one in these respects. Only this time, Bush has the advantage of being an incumbent and having a much larger war chest to fund the types of media campaigns like he did in South Carolina in the 2000 primaries. Also, he doesn’t have to waste it on a primary.
-Chris
Posted by: Chris at August 6, 2003 10:13 PMSmall donations add up. If a few percent of the population gave $100 each (that’s 6.8 cents per day over a four-year cycle), that would outweigh the big money that currently provides a lot of the political funding. Grass-roots involvement counts. Choosing candidates who can appeal to the center counts. Those three things are a huge part of how the radical right has gained control of the Republican party and put the Republican party in control of national politics.
Where was the McCain campaign five months before the first primary? Was it on the cover of Time, Newsweek, and US News? The parallel doesn’t hold up.
Posted by: Dan Wylie-Sears at August 6, 2003 10:21 PMIn a rough economy, it’s going to be harder to convince people to pony up $100 for a political candidate. Furthermore, with the advent of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform, the Republicans only gained an advantage as the donor who is donating under $200 will on average donate to the Republicans two-thirds of the time. With some of the larger soft money contributions out of the picture, the Democrats fall farther behind.
-Chris
(http://www.opensecrets.org/pubs/bigpicture2000/overview/donations.ihtml)
Posted by: Chris at August 6, 2003 10:48 PMMaybe McCain lost the Republican primaries because he represents the Democrat wing of the Republican Party.
Posted by: Richard Bennett at August 7, 2003 06:21 AMI agree with Richard. It becomes extremely difficult for a candidate on either side to get the nomination when they don’t stand for the core values of the party. Mccain has a serious problem with the base in the Republican party. His campaign finance reform bill was a huge slap in the face to the N.R.A. as well as other lobbying groups. This kind of thing will destroy a candidate on either side.
Posted by: Pete at August 7, 2003 10:55 AMDidn’t McCain have skin cancer surgery during the campaign? Seems like that could scare off the easily scared… like Bill Bradley’s mystery heart condition.
Posted by: Robbie D at August 7, 2003 11:11 AMI apologize if my writing was weak, but the point of the article was not to draw a strong analogy between McCain and the current Dems. Rather, it was to suggest a strategic alternative to the current way of thinking amongst the Democratic grassroots. Don’t get hung up on the McCain comparisons. If my fundamental assumption that none of the Democrats will beat Bush if flawed, I would be interested in hearing why.
Please don’t miss the larger points in this article.
Posted by: Chris at August 7, 2003 12:07 PMChris,
Typically parties benefit greatly by having a strong draw at the top of the ticket. To give up on the Presidential race is to doom the prospects for Democrats at the Congressional level. As I pointed out to you in reply to your comment on my Blog, www.feddersen.net, if the Dems run the same kind of campaign they ran in 2000 and 2002 and they will lose mostly because of Bush’s huge money advantage. The grass roots approach of Dean offers a potential counter balance.
If you go to my website you will see a graph showing the growth in the number of people who have joined Dean’s “Meetups.” The meetups occur on the first Wednesday of every month and right before and after there is a huge uptick in people joining. More than 5000 people have joined the Dean bandwagon in the last 48 hours.
We are looking at a candidate who is going “viral”. This is an unprecedented situation I think because the event is NOT happening due to extensive media coverage…it is a web thing. Getting 75,000 people out of their homes and into organized political activity in JULY the YEAR before the general election is remarkable.
If you are really committed to getting rid of Bush this is a phenomena you want to encourage. The reason is that all those folks that are organized online to help Dean can also be mobilized to help Democratic candidates for Congress. They may end up making a greater difference there than they do in the Presidential race.
Posted by: Tim at August 7, 2003 02:27 PMDean has already reached his peak it seems. He has a huge following now, but will time wear away at that? His “web following” seems to be made up of the far left fringe of the Democratic party. His support is drawn mostly by these Green, Socialist, and other parties that want to believe in the left field of the Democratic party. Appealing to the fanatics is not the way to win an election.
The Democrats usually turn left and then right during the election cycle. However, I think that Dean might have turned to far left to bring himself back center, by election time.
Posted by: Austin Barrow at August 7, 2003 04:07 PMAustin,
What do you know about Dean’s supporters? Got any data to back up your claim that it is all fringe types? More importantly, fringe types ALWAYS are more active than their mainstream counterparts, they are always over represented. The trend line of support for Dean doesn’t appear to be slacking off at all. If anything the data suggests that this is a period of rapid growth.
The problem with relying on the internet too much is that, by definition, it is still considered fringe. To get a message out to your potential voters you have got to get the major media outlets to rally your cause. I think that the grass roots aproach is important but not AS important as the mainstream. I just think that we need more time to see what the D.L.C. is going to do to Dean. They are mad as hell at him.
Posted by: pete at August 7, 2003 07:40 PMhonestly, it doesn’t matter if Dean’s supporters are fringe dems/leftists or as mainstream as they come. what matters is that Dean’s supporters are perceived as being fringe/leftists/hipsters onto a new political trend/etc. perception is reality when election season comes along.
the dems will probably lose in ‘04 no matter which candidate they put up, but i do have to agree with tim that it’s important to make at least a good show of having a legit dem candidate otherwise there’s no chance for the house and senate. which is all the more reason to credit austin’s perceptions. even if dean continues to pick up steam as he goes, he’s going to be seen as a mccain-type outsider within the party, or worse, scapegoated as a new nader, leaching votes away from a viable candidate. personally, so far i’ve liked what dean has to say (and little of it is particularly radical beyond pointing out the seemingly obvious about bush and iraq), but the only dem that stands a chance nationally is a southern dem, and even that dem’s best put to use as someone to throw to the lions while the senate/house dem candidates slip through hopefully unscathed and balance out our government a bit more.
a side note or question really, what do you think ‘08’s going to shape up to be? i see frist coming out strong for the repubs, but who’s the next big dem? will one from this election have the staying power to come back in ‘08 (assuming of course that ‘04 is as lost a cause as i’m making it out to be), will hillary dare run, or will gore come back like a phoenix from the ashes? he’s been protesting quite a lot lately that he has no intention of entering this race but it all smacks a bit of ophelia’s protesting too much. he certainly won’t enter this one, but what about the next go round? any thoughts?
Posted by: B at August 8, 2003 11:49 AMMcCain lost because Rove is a mean-spirited, but amazingly crafty, unethical asshole.
Posted by: Dougintexas at August 8, 2003 10:31 PMDean is a a business friendly, budget-balancing, pro-Israel, A-rated by the NRA, NAFTA-supporting centrist. We politics nerds who found him on the internet are looking for a winner, not a protest candidate.
The media has been trying to spin him as far left, because he opposed ONE war. He was in favor of Gulf War Sr., the intervention in the former Yugoslavia, and the overthrow of the Taliban. Hardly a pacifist. (Actually, he was also opposed to the Viet Nam war, but not actively so. So he only favors wars by a score of three to two.)
He will be able to position himself in the center without moving an inch.
Posted by: Dan Wylie-Sears at August 9, 2003 06:40 PMThis election is starting to mirror the prior one in these respects. Only this time, Bush has the advantage of being an incumbent and having a much larger war chest to fund the types of media campaigns like he did in South Carolina in the 2000 primaries. Also, he doesn’t have to waste it on a primary.
Posted by: michi at December 9, 2003 11:35 AMIf you are really committed to getting rid of Bush this is a phenomena you want to encourage. The reason is that all those folks that are organized online to help Dean can also be mobilized to help Democratic candidates for Congress. They may end up making a greater difference there than they do in the Presidential race.
