Thought Theater

The Democratic Party: Netroot Calculations genre: Polispeak & Six Degrees of Speculation

Wednesday's remarks by Senator Chuck Schumer, hinting that the Democratic Party would support Joe Lieberman even if he were to lose the Party nomination to Ned Lamont and run as an Independent, have angered many on the left...especially those identified as the netroots. I've previously written about the risks associated with the efforts to unseat Joe Lieberman here and here but I decided to take another stab at the issue.

When I first read Schumer's comments, the first thing I sought to understand was the thinking behind the statement...especially since it seems that there wasn't any compelling need to address an issue that, at the moment, is speculative. He could have simply said that the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee would not comment until the primary has been held. The fact that he didn't choose to do so tells me the remarks were offered with a deliberate purpose. Perhaps his words were a caution to Connecticut Democrats who might be considering a Lamont primary vote or perhaps they were a shot across the bow of the netroots intended to issue a warning that the Party won't be pulled too far left or that efforts to unseat incumbent Democrats isn't an accepted practice. Whatever the case, it seems clear that Schumer had a purpose in making his remarks.

Rather than focus on Schumer, it seems to me that energy and effort is better spent in understanding the netroots and the calculations they face. As I've read the reaction to Schumer throughout the netroots, I was immediately struck by the similarities to the current conflict within the Republican Party with regard to the demands of social conservatives. Many religious groups have threatened to sit out the midterm elections in order to deliver a message to a Party they feel has failed to deliver on a number of issues. While I didn't see much in the way of calls to sit out elections in the netroot dialogue, I certainly saw the sentiment that sought to punish the actions of Democratic insiders in the future. What was obvious was little reservation to engage in a Party shattering bloodbath intent on wrestling control from the establishment. If some elections are lost in the struggle, many seem prepared to accept that outcome.

As I've attempted to step back and look at the Democratic Party as an entity heading into an important election, I saw a Party more apt to splinter than to unite. Terms like DINO (Democrat in name only) litter comment threads and some even offered suggested opponents for Schumer in his next reelection campaign. Others that have previously been voices of reason who have called for dialogue and debate with the establishment Democrats in order to bring the ideas of the netroots to the table are now concluding that approach may be futile. Some are now calling for an all out war with beltway Democrats.

In the reactions to Schumer, I noticed another predominant sentiment. The fact that the DSCC would possibly support Lieberman as an independent over Lamont if he were to win the Democratic nomination is seen as an egregious violation of Party etiquette...quite often equated with treason. I understand how unprecedented it would be for the DSCC to oppose the Party nominee but I can also sympathize with the DSCC in feeling that the primary may provide a Lamont victory while not actually being a true representation of Democratic voter sentiment.

It reminds me of Senator John McCain’s dilemma within the Republican Party. Given the activism of social conservatives he may not be able to win his Party's nomination despite potentially being favored by more Republicans. Not surprisingly, both sides of the debate invoke the principles of democracy in justifying their strategic objectives as well as their outrage at the possibility that the opposition would seek to overrule what they perceive as the democratic process. Neither side is fully accurate in their protestations.

The reality is an imperfect system that often rewards strategy over the straightforward notion of majority democracy. Though we rarely acknowledge the fact, the majority of Americans cast no vote, and while that decision doesn't register on either side of the ballot, it is a commentary on a flawed system that both Party’s’ accept because it can offer possibilities for manipulated advantages. I point this out in order to highlight the inherent bias and to dispel the righteous indignations that permeate the arguments.

I've previously argued that the netroots effort to unseat Lieberman is wrought with risk. From my perspective, the current struggle is primarily focused on who will control the Party and secondarily on winning general elections. Granted, the netroots feel that a Lamont win over Lieberman is in fact about winning elections. However, that perspective is necessarily confined to an internal conflict that seeks to first define the Democratic Party and then begin to focus on defeating the Republicans. This construct is unfortunately built upon flawed logic.

Let me attempt to explain my argument. If we first divide the country along a left / right continuum and tabulate the numbers on either side, it would be difficult to conclude anything but that there are more voters to the right than to the left. I accept the limitations of such a generalization but I base my argument upon the data that has been the byproduct of American elections for the last generation. Supporting information includes the shift of the Democratic south to a solid Republican stronghold and the urban / rural dynamic that has been evident in the Electoral College distributions.

Some might argue that Bill Clinton's presidency and Al Gore's popular vote victory disprove this premise...but I would argue that Clinton won in 1992 because he was perceived as more of a centrist and because Perot split the votes of those on the right. With regard to Gore, he actually ran to the right of Clinton in order to overcome the "values" stigma left by the ethical and moral scandals. In addition, Gore had the benefit of a strong economy and perceived prosperity. He didn't win the popular vote based upon the left / right equation.

If I'm correct, the voter distribution remains skewed to the right. The problems this presents are numerous. I will attempt to confine my analysis to the current internal conflict within the Democratic Party. As such, one can argue that where a Democratic candidate sits on the left / right continuum is inconsequential if the focus is on whether he or she is far enough to the left. In other words, when a candidate moves further left to satisfy the netroots or when the Party nominates candidates who are further left (Lamont for example), it may resolve some of the dissention between netroot Democrats and beltway Democrats, but there is not a correlation with the realities of the overall voter distribution. In fact, if my assumptions are accurate, such a move simply reduces the possibility to defeat the Republicans and take control of the House or the Senate.

While Democrats are debating passions and principles, Karl Rove and the Republicans continue to hammer home the point with their constituency that a Republican loss is always a defeat for the entire constituency. Rove has, in my opinion, time and again called the bluff of those who have threatened to leave the constituency. He has succeeded because he spends at least as much time defining the opposition as he does catering to the particular demands of the various coalition groups. In doing so, he can defeat dissention by simply pointing to the alternative knowing full well that the various groups have no better choices. If pressed, he can point to the 1992 Clinton election to demonstrate the results of a splintered Party.

I've again heard rumblings about a third party but once again history has more often demonstrated that third Party's simply provide the opposition an easier victory. Examples include the Perot and Nader candidacies. Unless a third Party can win during its first election cycle, it is doomed to failure as voters quickly conclude, much like any example of conditioned learning, that their vote led to a negative outcome and they determine to not repeat the behavior. It is difficult to imagine a scenario with enough motivation and magnitude to allow a third party to achieve victory in its first election cycle.

The lessons of third party's can be extrapolated to movements within a given party. If a movement is to succeed, it must achieve quick success or find itself irrelevant. The added problem for intra-party movements is that a victory within the party may actually spell defeat for the movement should that internal victory end in eventual defeat by the opposition party. In other words, if the netroots succeed in nominating the candidates they prefer but those candidates lose their elections to the opposing party, the voters within the party will quickly determine that voting with the movement has negative consequences and the behavior will soon be extinguished.

I've been criticized for expressing my hesitations with regard to the efforts of the netroots to support Lamont in order to unseat Lieberman. Much of the criticism has been focused on comparing the positions of Lamont to Lieberman. I have repeatedly stated that I understand those comparisons but that I am not attempting to make a judgment about either candidate; rather I am attempting to provide a reasoned argument that leads the netroots to look beyond the frustrations of the moment in order to preserve the viability of the movement. I remain focused on seeking an equation that allows Democrats to devise a majority constituency in order to defeat the Republicans.

I certainly don't have all of the answers but I am committed to an attempt to identify all of the questions. All too often certainty emerges from a cursory examination of the questions because we rarely enjoy having a damper placed upon the fires of passion. Unfortunately, if the fire is extinguished, so too is the passion. Sometimes the slow but sure burn of a constant flame...no matter how small...is the spark that ignites the fires of enduring change. Sometimes the flash of a raging inferno...no matter how intense...is extinguished when the winds of change blow the flames back upon themselves such that there is no longer fuel to sustain the burn...leaving behind the hollow shell of a once mighty and thriving tree.

With that in mind, I ask the following questions...hopeful that we can have a productive debate that embraces a dialogue of decency in order to reach an informed and embolden consensus.

Can netroots candidates win general elections and with what message?

What is the make-up of the netroots voting block and is it large enough to defeat Republican candidates?

If the Democratic Party were to adopt the netroots positions, who are the voting constituencies outside of those within the netroots that will join us in our efforts to defeat the Republicans?

Do the netroots feel they have a constituency equal to or larger than the one led by the religious right and how can that be determined or changed if that isn't the case?

What do the netroots think the position of independents and those in the center will be in 2006 when they vote? Will they go left or right and how can that be determined or altered if it needs to be?

Is the DSCC hinting they would support Lieberman as an independent because they believe Lamont would lose to the Republican if nominated or what exactly is the message they are attempting to deliver and is it valid or does it have merit?

What is the actual goal of the netroots and has it been clearly defined and have all the risks been discussed and provided so that Democrats can make an informed decision about the direction of the Democratic Party?

If the netroots were to fail, what contingency plan has been devised to continue the movement and to prevent the collapse of support from other Democratic constituent groups?