January 29, 2005
A Path to Victory for GOP Challengers
One of the many biggest mistakes the Dem. Party made over the last 4 years was Terry McAuliffe. Terry was an attack dog, and he partially set the standard and tone of the Democratic opposition to the GOP. One does not attack a campaign of a rival who claims compassion, inclusion, and respect by attacking their character. In 2000, I was working with a local Dem. group on a local water issue. I told the Pres. of that group that Terry McAuliffe and those like him would lose the elections in the future. He of course, disagreed. The proof was in the pudding.
McAuliffe's fundamental flaw, was in using attacks on the issues and character of the GOP and Bush as a means to an end, Winning! That is a contest which both sides play, but, frankly, the GOP is much better at it. Also, the GOP had much more to play with by virtue of the Dem's having become such a huge Big Tent party accommodating such a wide range of minority issues. The Dem's allowed their minority issues to become the focal point for criticism by the GOP, almost completely obscuring the Dem's major, centrist, and moderate platform issues.
And McAuliffe and Kerry displayed a willingness to take any position necessary to win. It showed as a weakness of character, a flip flopping serving the ends of winning instead of core issues serving the needs and interests of the people.
The Democrats have to forget about winning, if they are going to find their centrist, moderate, and majority roots in the wishes and needs of the majority of Americans. Newt Gingrich set about to remake the GOP by forcing it to find the values common to the majority of Americans. Once that was done, it was a simple matter for Rove and Wolfowitz and Rice and Cheney to shape and craft their rhetoric to both accommodate their agendas as well as what the majority of Americans wanted to hear. But, the GOP always insured that what the Americans wanted to hear took precedence in the campaign. The agenda comes with legislation, and the voters don't pay attention to legislation.
The voters want to trust and believe in their representatives. That is why the GOP got it exactly right. Rhetoric, and salesmanship must always be the first priority and issues secondary, and then, only those issues are spoken of which can be dressed up in mainstream value terms. Those issues that can't be accommodated in full public view can be addressed by executive order, hidden in omnibus bills, or otherwise crafted to succeed without appearing to be championed.
Regardless of what legislation and policy shape the GOP steers America's future toward, they have won the hearts and minds of a sufficient number of American voters to command loyalty and suspension of disbelief. And this is key for any party that wants to challenge the GOP. Because once a voter has realigned their loyalty and beliefs in one party, a great deal of what that party does can and will be rationalized as good. This is the basic principle of Cognitive Dissonance. Having made a decision, humans will go to extraordinary lengths to defend that decision up to and including rationalizing away evidence contradicting the fact that the decision was a poor one.
This is the very high hurdle the Dem's and any other party must clear before having any hope of unseating the GOP from power.
Let me use the Democratic Party for example. There is only one path for the Dem's to follow in order to unseat the GOP. They must, like Gingrich did, realistically remap the core values, desires and needs of the majority of Americans today without prejudice. Then they must exclude from their publicly visible ranks, those members who will promote issues contradicting that American voter value system.
Then the Dem's must engage the GOP in a two pronged way. First, they must promote only those policies and platform issues which closely correlate with the majority of voters core values and needs. And secondly, they must demonstrate in 8th grade terminology, graphs, pictures and sound bites, how GOP legislation and policies fail to live up to the DEMOCRATS' (meaning majority of American voters) core values and needs. Notice that I did not say, 'show how the GOP fails to live up to its own core values and needs.' This is crucial. Because trying to demonstrate hypocrisy in the GOP will backfire. Cognitive Dissonance by the voters will view any attack on the GOP as an attack on them who voted for the GOP. Huge, HUGE mistake!
It took a decade and a half for the GOP to follow their plan, and achieve success in winning over all the branches of government save the Supreme Court, and even that may fall to them in the next couple years. That is why it is so very important for the challenging parties to let go of the notion of winning elections as a motive. It will lead to short cuts that will avoid the heavy lifting and hard work that is required for them the retake the reins of government.
First and foremost, the challengers must dissociate their party from those whose values are only reflected in a minority of voters, and they must embrace and promulgate those issues and values which only a clear majority of American voters want to identify with. This will be the painful price to pay for having lost, or never achieving power.
It does not mean minority issues cannot one day be embraced again by the Dem. party or a challenging party, but, that will have to be when power is regained or attained, and then, never to the exclusion and rejection of the core values and needs of the majority. Not if power is to be retained.
And that brings me to the GOP Achilles' Heel. Now that they have power, they will, as they already have begun to do with Social Security and Medicare, move their minority issues. The GOP does not believe in social programs sponsored by and supported by the majority of Americans through their government. That is why the GOP set about to bankrupt Medicare as quickly as possible through making it far more expensive than it had to be. That is why they are engaging SS reform in a manner that will kill Soc. Sec. as a government sponsored program.
The majority of Americans want SS fixed, not ended. Hence, the GOP is pushing their minority policies, i.e. those which the majority of Americans cannot embrace if there is a viable alternative.
Challenging Parties must avoid GOP motives in their resistance, and must focus on viable alternatives to the GOP minority supported policies. Only by following that path can they reflect majority American core interests and avoid the cognitive dissonance reaction toward criticizing GOP values. Remember, to critique GOP values, is to critique a majority of voters values which are aligned with and defended as American values. The Dem's and others must approach competition with the GOP in the media purely on pragmatic solution grounds. Show a better SS reform policy, show a cheaper Medicare alternative, provide a fairer tort reform policy, etc. To attack GOP motives, is to attack voters decisions and they won't identify with anyone who claims the voters made a bad decision.
It is a hard and difficult and very, very narrow path that any contending party must follow if they wish to unseat the GOP. But the path is open, for any party with the discipline, commitment, and perseverance to stay that path to power.
David,
I just wondered why you are not in the blue column. Most all of your posts defend the blues and bash the reds.
Did you used to be a Democrat? or are you a wannabe Dem if they change a few things?
We know that the Independent Party had a chance at one time for success and it never happened.
I believe you would never join the Reds.
You could just as easily have posted an article called - ‘How Reds can keep their power’.
Instead you choose to help the Blues regain power. You did throw in some ideas on how an alternative party can achieve success.
Just curious because it appears to me that you are not a true Independent.
I know - reality is that we only have 2 parties to choose from and that may be why you lean towards the blue side. They hold true to more of your values than the Reds do ??
You are right about the rhetoric. It has to be convincing to the majority of Americans. You are right that we have to trust that they will do what they say. You are right that things are done by sneaking them into other bills and not made a ‘big’ issue.
You said:
“First and foremost, the challengers must dissociate their party from those whose values are only reflected in a minority of voters, and they must embrace and promulgate those issues and values which only a clear majority of American voters want to identify with. This will be the painful price to pay for having lost, or never achieving power.”
Dissociate? If a party were to do this how can they claim they are the same party? Won’t it be seen as a ploy to ‘fool’ people into joining their side? Why wouldn’t the other parties point this out and use it against them?
Posted by: dawn at January 29, 2005 12:47 PMDawn, yes, I used to be a Democrat as well as a chief critic of the Democrats for their guns stance, and fiscal lack of responsibility before Clinton’s second term. I them moved to the Green Party, before finally just going Independent.
I am a social liberal and fiscal conservative, like 10’s of millions of independents in this country, many or most of whom don’t even vote because there is no party reflecting their core social/fiscal issues. The Republicans oppose our nation taking care of its own, while justifying huge transfer payment to take care of peoples in other nations. A hypocrisy I cannot live with. The Democrats utterly failed, until the Republican Congress forced Clinton’s hand in his second term, to recognize the fundamental criticism against taxes, which is not that they exist, but, how they are spent. The Waste, Fraud, and abuse of American hard earned tax dollars as an issue stuck to the Democrats and for very good reason.
I oppose Democrats mainly for fiscal policies which did not extract quality and excellence for the tax dollars spent, but, also, for there extreme deafness to a few of the core concerns of mainstream Americans. Their party became a huge bureacracy unto itself and they failed recognize and effectively remedy the enormous inefficencies that existed, and continue to exist, in their own party.
But, also, not least, I abhor both the major party’s abuse of democracy in terms of gerrymandering the politics of America and denying democracy to the millions upon millions of Americans who would like to see third parties have a level playing field for competition of ideas.
And finally, I utterly reject the Democrats and Republicans putting their politics ahead of the long term solutions that are required to solve our largest problems, declining education standards, declining fiscal agilitiy due to massive trade, national, and personal debt, and lastly a declining role in the international marketplace. All of these issues require policies that are realistic, non-partisan, and long-term in their implementaion by increments so as not to sacrifice to much of the present quality of life for the assurance of greater quality in the future. Both the major parties are utterly unwilling to tackle these long term problems in reality. They pay lip service, but, do not act on their words.
If the Democrats were in power, I would, be as adamant a critic of fiscal policy, and as ardently critical of the other issues outlined above.
Posted by: David R. Remer at January 29, 2005 01:48 PMDawn, P.S., if you view my comments in the Blue column, you will find them almost all critical of the Democratic Party.
My role as political critic is focused on the Republicans in my essays primarily due to the fact that they are the ones currently steering the ship of state, in the wrong direction from my Independent perspective.
Posted by: David R. Remer at January 29, 2005 01:52 PMTerry McAuliffe (along with Ken Salazar) was by far most successful democrat of 2004. For the first time in recent history, the democrats raised more money than the republicans, that was his job. McAuliffe was not running for any office, but he had to defend all of the democrat positions. He was an attack dog because that was his only option. Could you imagine defending what came out of John Kerry’s mouth? Anyone would get grouchy. The smartest thing the DNC could do is beg McAuliffe to stay as chairman, crank up the fund-raising for ‘08 and fool everyone into thinking HRC is a moderate.
Posted by: Peter at January 30, 2005 09:11 AMPeter, you are arguing that he did some things well. Fine. But, it was not he alone responsible for all that fund raising so don’t give him credit for more than he is due.
Fact is, under his leadership, his party lost in the house, senate, and the presidency. Your argument is invalid on its face.
Posted by: David R. Remer at January 30, 2005 09:34 AMDavid,
Great article!
I may not agree on all your views on issues, But I have oceans of respect for understanding of politics, voter perceptions, media coverage, and the ability to put it into print in an understandable way to most readers.
No political party can further the views of the minority of that party if they can’t get elected.
You cant win elections if the minority view of the party is pushed to the forefront, knowing the the mainstreet media will only show snippets of the most radical stuff in the news of the day.
Thats all most voters see, snippets and tag-lines.
This aritcle could have been in any column, about any party, the net result from a political standpoint would be the same;….
Something that can’t be faked, nor can it be hidden, political wisedom!
Posted by: Beagle at January 30, 2005 01:18 PMDavey,
My point is that he is good at raising coin. You can not blame him for the awful candidates. You can not blame him for the ridiculous platform. I think that the democrats were lucky they did not lose worse. The republicans are far more inept. They have much better candidates and a much more rational platform, and yeah, they have a significant mandate, but they should have a “FDR-1936-Slam-Dunk” mandate.
Posted by: Peter at January 30, 2005 09:58 PMPeter, he could have raised twice the coin, it would not have changed the outcome, for reasons I outlined.
Posted by: David R. Remer at January 31, 2005 12:17 AMI totally agree it would not have changed the outcome, but you can’t blame McAuliffe, you have to blame the awful platform and candidates. Think about the people they ran for office and what came out of their mouths.
Posted by: Peter at January 31, 2005 10:18 AMNice post David
“completely obscuring the Dem’s major, centrist, and moderate platform issues”
As one who tends to vote for Dems more often than Reps in local elections, I have to say that this statement speaks volumes on how I feel.
Many of us have responded to blue topics saying the Dems have gone to far left and judging from the blue siders responses, I don’t think anyone of them believes it.
Shifting to the middle, where the majority of voters are, does not mean they have to become Rep. lite.
I hope some of them will stop and think alittle after reading your post.
Peter-
I’ve gotta agree with David here; Terry’s job was to win elections and not just raise the coin. By that measurement he and the Democratic Party failed.
David-
Seems to me that the Democrats are a lousy minority party and the Republicans are a not so hot majority party. By the time they both figure it out I’m sure it will be too late.
kctim-
You sound like you might be one of us Reagan Democrats (prior to Reagan I voted mostly Democrat). The problem is the Democratic Party no longer wants people like us, and are only willing to pay lip service to moderates to socially conservative people in order to get elected.
What role could a Sam Nunn play in todays Democratic Party? How about former Education Secretary Richard Riley? Riley is interesting because, as a Democratic Governor, he changed South Carolina’s constitution to allow consecutive terms then ran unopposed. And that was after he raised the State’s sales tax.
The problem is the base of the Democratic Party has no tollerence for moderate to conservative social views and the only alternative in a two party system is the GOP. Unless David can get his wish and add a viable third party…..
Posted by: George at January 31, 2005 12:13 PMGeorge, I am not sure it will be too late, but that prospect is real and very scary.
Posted by: David R. Remer at January 31, 2005 07:06 PMBeagle, thank you. That was one of the highest compliments I have ever received. Your comment makes months of setting learning and thinking to print on WB and all of the criticism which that entails, worth every minute of the effort.
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 1, 2005 02:25 AMDavid,
You still have time to make a run for the DNC chair !
Posted by: Beagle at February 1, 2005 08:58 AMBeagle, no thanks. I have neither the connections, loyalty, nor belief in either major party to want to sacrifice family and personal life for a bureaucracy that is institutionally set in concrete (i.e. high dollar donors).
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 2, 2005 04:34 AMThe problem is the Democratic Party no longer wants people like us, and are only willing to pay lip service to moderates to socially conservative people in order to get elected.
George, that’s totally untrue. Who told you that? The Democratic Party’s leaders are mostly moderate. I’m a moderate, and I’m happily inviting you back. Where do you want the basket of fruit with the “Welcome back!” banner sent? :)
BTW, David. Excellent article. You’re right on the mark, though I think jettisoning the wacky-left will happen by itself. Bush’s presidency united the entire lefty spectrum behind whoever was going to seriously oppose him, providing the party with some unofficial spokespeople we could have done without.
If you look at the Democratic leadership, they’re all pretty moderate - unless you think opposing Bush’s radical-right agenda is ultra-liberal rather than just common sense.
AP-
Come on you know it’s true. You guys are moving Hil to the middle in an effort to re-gain some of Clinton’s moderate/conservative support, but that won’t work given “managed competition” and the “vast right wing conspiracy”.
As long as no one in Washington is willing to reach across the isle a moderate would have to come from a State House, and all of those run away from the national ticket not with it. Except Dean of course, and if he wins the chair then the Democratic Party will finally become a liberal/progressive issue party.
But I will take the fruit basket! :)
As long as no one in Washington is willing to reach across the isle…
I have to assume you’re talking about Republicans there. Here’s a rant I never get tired of posting,
“The American people expected genuine debate. Yet Republicans limited floor discussion on one of the most dramatic changes to Medicare in its history to a mere two hours. Two hours. And this behavior was not limited and confined to the vote on Medicare. For some reason, and I think it should be obvious what it is, the Republicans insist on having votes that are of great import to the American people, where they are clearly on the wrong side of the issue, taken in the middle of the night.“On a Friday in March at 2:54 a.m., the House cut veterans benefits by three votes. At 2:39 a.m. on a Friday in April, House Republicans slashed education and health care by five votes. At 1:56 a.m. on a Friday in May, the House passed a leave no millionaire behind tax cut bill by a handful of votes. And at 3:38 a.m. on a Friday in June, the House GOP passed a Medicare privatization and prescription drug bill by one vote. At 12:57 a.m. on a Friday in July, the House passed a Head Start bill by one single vote, and that Head Start bill was to undermine and unravel a very successful Head Start initiative. And then after returning from a summer recess, at 12:12 a.m. on Friday in October, the House voted $87 billion for Iraq, an issue that Democrats and Republicans were on both sides of the issue, as were the American people. They deserve to hear the debate in the light of day.
“It degrades our democracy when Democrats have no role in the legislation. This legislation affects millions of Americans — but we had no role in conference negotiations, no chance to offer amendments, no alternatives, and limited debate or discussion.
“It degrades our democracy when secret negotiations — such as those on energy legislation — rip up provisions supported by both Houses and insert new provisions approved by neither House.
There’s more. It’s a great read.
Posted by: American Pundit at February 3, 2005 09:44 AMPlease AP, this is what I’m talking about when I say that the Democrats are not very good at being the minority party. You don’t think the GOP had to live with this kind of BS for a few decades? This isn’t a rant; it’s a whine only without the cheese….
And last night’s booing at a State of the Nation was tacky.
The Democratic Party has to become less of an opposition party and adjust to its minority status, at least for a while. This whining crap isn’t helping.
And I still say the Democratic Party has become a progressive liberal party and is no longer a big tent with room for social conservatives. Elect Dean and I’ll continue my hiatus.
