Political Strategy: Splitting The Baby genre: Polispeak & Six Degrees of Speculation
The following posting is the fourth entry in a continuing Thought Theater dialogue on political strategy. The first posting, Political Strategy: The Opening Dialogue, can be found here, the second posting, Political Strategy: Beyond Extremist Labels can be found here, and the third posting, Political Strategy: The Numbers Speak can be found here.
I've always been fascinated by watching and listening to people. I can spend hours in the background without feeling the need to comment or react. Meanwhile, I like to gather information and attempt to sort the reality from the rhetoric in order to obtain some degree of "truth". Only then do I feel compelled to make any definitive statements...often offered more as a deconstruction of the various arguments in order to expose the essentials rather than as an unabashed endorsement of one or the other position. With that in mind, I decided it was the appropriate time to expand on my previous observations about political strategy with the Lieberman v. Lamont Senate race as the backdrop.
Those who oppose Joe Lieberman have been vocal and visible in their dislike of the Connecticut Senator. Primarily, from my perspective, the dislike of Lieberman is centered on his support of the Bush administration position with regard to the war in Iraq. Adding to the vitriol was the infamous George Bush kiss and the abrasive remarks made by Lieberman that accused those who opposed the war of undermining the country's efforts. Since making those ill advised comments, Lieberman's opponents have sought to point out other objectionable actions on the part of Lieberman.
As I've reviewed these other transgressions, while I understand how they can be seen as objectionable, I'm also convinced that, if motivated, one could find similar unacceptable votes or actions on the part of most Democratic Senators. Therefore, my conclusion is twofold. One, Lieberman's vocal embrace of the Bush administration's Iraq position is untenable to many netroots Democrats...any inclination to side with the hated and reviled George Bush is akin to treason. Two, many of those who have found success on the internet have tapped into the anti-Bush sentiment such that it has served their interests to focus attention on exposing and defeating Democrats that have embraced those Bush administration positions that infuriate their readership.
That is not to say that the positions taken by powerful netroots bloggers are incongruent with their beliefs and passions...I take them at their word and I respect their efforts. However, in their zeal, I am of the opinion that they have failed to provide their readership with fully reasoned analysis such that they may be leading themselves and their readers towards irrelevance. I also understand how momentum and growth can lead one to believe that not only is change possible but that it is inevitable. Nonetheless, as I've previously noted, the risk of false consensus remains a potential. That risk is amplified when financial gain is an adjunct to the endeavor as has been the case with a number of well read netroot blogs. As such, applying some measure of caution or providing any reasons for doubt would be both counterintuitive and counterproductive to those behind such blogs.
Let me attempt to explain some of the particulars. First, it seems to me that we have a bit of the chicken / egg argument at play with regard to this race. Lieberman feels that Lamont is disloyal to the Party in his efforts to unseat an incumbent who has been generally well liked within the state simply because he has taken an unpopular position with regards to the Iraq war. Lamont supporters feel that a primary race is fully acceptable when voters within the Party may well prefer a different candidate with differing positions. They feel Lieberman is disloyal in announcing that he may run as an independent candidate should he lose the primary race in early August.
Let me attempt to sort out the rhetoric. First, Lamont is entitled to run against an incumbent and while it may be frustrating to Lieberman, it is wholly acceptable. It may also be detrimental to the Democratic Party but I will address that later in this posting. Second, while Lieberman’s announcement to run as an independent is contrary to traditional Party etiquette, Connecticut remains a state within a democracy that allows for such strategic maneuvers. The real issues aren’t fully addressed in either side’s argument.
Here’s the rest of the equation. Many Lamont netroots supporters aren’t from Connecticut but they still dislike Lieberman and, by virtue of their affiliation with powerful blogs, they have been able to influence the race with publicity and funding. It is also a given that turnout for the primary may well be skewed towards those who oppose the war in Iraq and seek to unseat Lieberman. Again, there is nothing wrong with these efforts as they are routinely acted out in numerous races, although more frequently by one Party against another Party. That is democracy at work.
At the same time, it appears from recent polling that Lieberman may well be the preferred candidate of more voters in Connecticut than either Lamont or the Republican candidate. While it may be debatable if Lieberman will remain the favorite of Democratic voters (recent polling still indicates that he is), it is possible that he could still lose the primary if netroot voters turn out in larger numbers. That would potentially mean that the favored Democrat isn’t the Party’s candidate…which may be frustrating but which would still be consistent with the political system in place.
Absent from the netroot argument is the fact that democracy is also about the will of the voters. If Lieberman were to lose the primary (whether it be because a real majority of Democrats favor the other candidate or because those Democratic voters who favor Lamont turn out in larger numbers), he may still be the preferred Senator of a majority of voters. While his running outside of the Democratic Party designation would be frustrating to those voters who supported his primary opponent, it would still be democracy at work. In fact, it may be more democratic if Lieberman is in fact the candidate preferred by more Connecticut voters. That too is democracy at work.
One must then ask why the netroots are so concerned with the possibility that Lieberman may run as an independent. The answer may well be quite simple. Strategically, the netroots may have figured a way to get their candidate on the November ballot as the Democratic candidate but they may well not have enough voters to win the election. While that may not seem “fair", it is within the framework we embrace. Conversely, from a strategic standpoint, Lieberman may have figured out a way to be on the November ballot despite potentially not be the favored Democrat (although he still could be and not be the Democratic candidate) and he may well have the votes to win. While that may seem to be a betrayal to the Party (and I could make the argument it may not be if he turns out to in fact be the candidate preferred by more Democratic voters in November) and may not seem “fair", but it is also within the framework we embrace.
Attempting to weigh the reasonability of the opposing strategies is ultimately a waste of time and energy because each is acceptable within our political structure. Essentially, the outrage is simply part of the rhetoric and not an element of the realities. Whether or not the system should be altered would be a topic worthy of a reasoned debate…but it likely won’t be considered because politics may well be more about finding strategic advantage than it is about creating a fully fair system that seeks to honor the intent of our founding fathers. As with most discussions of reform, this will likely slip off the screen once the haggling of this particular race has ceased. What will remain is the will to find other strategic advantages to be used in the future.
That brings me back to where my interest first surfaced with regard to this series of postings and this particular race…strategy. My first posting on the topic, Ned Lamont: A Wise Netroots Gamble?, was an attempt to look beyond the Connecticut Senate race to the ramifications that may result from this particular netroots effort. Further, in other subsequent postings, I have argued that the Democratic Party seems unable to focus on winning back control of the House and the Senate as it cannot seem to reach a consensus that could establish the basis upon which to build a majority coalition that could unseat the Republican hold on power.
I don’t believe the Democratic Party has begun the above process which is essential to winning enough elections to assume a position of power. In the meantime, what may well transpire is a Supreme Court that will dictate the direction of our society for the next two decades…a situation that will then not be changeable by the voters and which may well forestall the implementation of most of the agenda’s within the Democratic Party. As I note in the headline of this posting, Democrats may well be “splitting the baby". Unfortunately, the only time such an endeavor has ever succeeded was when there were two babies to split.
Tearing apart the Party in order to assuage the ambitions and agendas of minority factions may temporarily payoff for a select few…but it will unquestionably kill those movements and keep the Party in a state of perpetual fracture. More often than not, one must look for the silent agenda hidden within the voiced agenda. Many of those that have sought to distinguish themselves as anti-establishment outsiders simply seek to establish themselves as the purveyors of tomorrows prevailing rhetoric. In the meantime, those who seek change by embracing veiled agendas without being willing to fully explore and expose reality are not merely manipulated pawns who fail to see beyond the rhetoric…they are enablers who find comfort in anger and outrage while ignoring the hard work that is required to transform rhetoric into reality.
Ironically, while I often find myself isolated in my opinions…my opinions have at their core an unbiased desire to expose “truth’ in order to provide the opportunity to effect meaningful change. In this construct we call politics that may well be the worst strategy one can employ. So be it.
Daniel DiRito | July 6, 2006 | 9:50 AM
Comments
1 On July 8, 2006 at 6:51 PM, Brian Malloy wrote —
Dear Daniel,
You're such a good writer and your argument is compelling. Essentially I believe you're saying that the democratic party has already lost the judiciary, so let's go for the Senate and the House. Your strategy is simple: "all decisions should be based on the goal: winning!"
Moreover, your view seems to be that while the net powers-that-be may "get back at Lieberman," it will be at the expense of a perpetually fractured party. That a Lieberman defeat may feed the vindictiveness of a few, but will exacerbate the fracture in the democratic party.
Tearing apart the Party in order to assuage the ambitions and agendas of minority factions may temporarily payoff for a select few…but it will unquestionably kill those movements and keep the Party in a state of perpetual fracture.
However, your argument is simplistic and achievement of your goal is based on the algorithm that we always support the "self-avowed democrat" because if the Senate has 51 Democrats and 49 Republicans -- the democrats are in power.
The problem is that the "self-avowed democrats" don't always quack like democrats. You know the saying, "if it quacks like a duck it must be a duck!" I believe that it is "democrats" like Lieberman and sHillery that have fractured the party, not the net bloggers who want a democrat that quacks like a democrat.
I will readily admit, there aren't very many democrats quacking like democrats. Russ Feingold, and most of the time Howard Dean, come immediately to mind. So what do I mean by a democrat? I thought a democrat opposed discrimination, in all of its forms. I thought democrats opposed an unjust war, a war whose only goal is to exploit the conquered. Hillary Clinton equivocates almost as much as Lieberman on the war and on gay marriage. I'm not sure if sHillary voted against the far right justices, Roberts and Alito, who tilted the Supreme Court to the right, but I know that Lieberman voted and campaigned for them!
The winning republican strategy has been to "court your base" and the rest will follow. Thus, RoveCo rails against gays, pushes for ammendments that will install discrimination against gay people permanently into the constitution, pushes for an ammendment against flag burning, and provides billions in funding for abstinence for adolescents and against safe sex!
The losing democratic strategy seems to be to court both the center and the left, thereby guaranteeing that everyone will be angry. This strategy is guaranteed to produce a schizophrenic candidate who confuses voters because we never know where they really are on a given issue. In the 2004 election, by November, it was hard to distinguish Kerry's position from Bush's.
As Truman said, "Given a choice between a real Republican and a Democrat who acts like a Republican, Americans will choose the real Republican every time."
So the question I ask is, "is Lieberman a real Democrat, or is he a Democrat quacking like a republican?" For if he is the latter, then by the Truman axiom, we are doomed!
2 On July 9, 2006 at 2:25 PM, Daniel wrote —
Brian,
I always appreciate your comments and observations. I do enjoy hearing differing perspectives and welcome the opportunity for dialogue.
I have to disagree with your conclusions that my argument is too simplistic or that I have a formulaic approach to supporting the incumbent. Further, a calculation of my arguments simplistic quotient is also somewhat irrelevant since I am not attempting to support a candidate but to illuminate some degree of "truth" based reality in order to make strategic decisions. Nonetheless, I understand the point you seek to make.
Let me attempt to explain. To do so, I must first reverse your logic and pose some relevant questions. Who are the keepers and the monitors of what it means to be a "real Democrat" as opposed to a "self-avowed Democrat"? How would you propose the "Party" make such determinations? Doesn't your logic necessarily require choosing a particular point on the political spectrum? If so, doesn't such an approach preclude the realities of statistical analysis and the ability to use such analysis to achieve a majority coalition? A single point on a spectrum or a bell curve is by its nature a very small quantity...especially when one looks at either end of the spectrum or the curve.
Brian, it seems to me that by definition, the "real Democrats" that you invoke are in fact a minority voting block. I would welcome your explanation otherwise. Do Democrats from time to time fail to vote to support the principles you outline (against discrimination, against unjust wars, etc)? Yes they do at times…but you fail to acknowledge what realities may lead them to occasionally do so.
As a gay man, I am opposed to discrimination and I support gay marriage…but I realize that in the end it is partly my responsibility to change the hearts and minds of the people I encounter. Sure it would be easier to say I want all Democratic politicians to vote the right way all the time…but I’m not so naïve as to fail to realize that they have to remain in office if I am even going to have a chance of getting the equality I seek. The truth is that gay marriage isn’t yet an issue favored by a majority of Americans…and if I don’t give my politicians some wiggle room, they may well be replaced by a far worse Republican politician…who often has to juggle positions as well. While it doesn’t always make me happy, I accept these political realities. At the same time, I have little doubt that Democratic politicians will keep working for my interests…slow as it may seem at times. They have my support because the alternative is unacceptable. I know that and they do to.
I've previously argued that attempts to extrapolate voter sentiment regarding the war in Iraq into a Democratic majority coalition is a mistake...and I think the 2004 election offered a glimpse of that assertion. In my opinion, opposition to the war will not translate into a Democratic majority position nor could it be sustained if it somehow did in one particular voting cycle. I say that because it too is only a single view in a much more complex equation by which a voter elects his or her political persuasions in the long run.
You contend that Democrats like Lieberman and Clinton have fractured the Party. Again, I tend to think that argument may be irrelevant. Regardless, I have to challenge that assertion...not so much to conclude the opposite (that the netroots has fractured the Party)...but to argue that by definition you are in fact splitting the baby which only supports my contention and makes the Party even less consequential and further removed from a majority position.
I have to inquire as to the basis upon which you believe that if all Democratic candidates were "real" Democrats, then Democrats would suddenly become a majority Party? Who are the voters that haven’t voted but will subsequently begin voting Democratic? My own observation is that voter segment may be best described by those who supported Ralph Nader in 2000. Beyond that, I believe it would be difficult to identify those voters who would begin to vote Democratic.
If the supposition is such that one expects those who have failed to regularly vote will begin to vote (and that they will vote predominantly Democratic), that argument has been made each presidential cycle but it has simply not materialized. The several progressive netroot candidates that have run for office were not able to generate "new" voters.
In the most recent example in CA-50, the numbers suggest that Busby did not draw such voters to the polls...despite the mood of the country, the Cunningham scandal, and all the national attention and fundraising. The numbers simply haven't materialized as much as I would like to believe otherwise.
Additionally, as I previously pointed out in Political Strategy: The Numbers Speak, voters identify as conservative over liberal by nearly a two to one margin. Unless I misunderstand your definition of a "real" Democrat, you are suggesting that the Democratic Party needs to run more "liberal" candidates. While I identify with the bulk of the liberal agenda, I can't imagine how moving further in that direction is going to win more voters and more elections.
You also state that the Republican strategy is to court the base and the rest will follow. I believe Rove's strategy is far more complex...and that it is actually more focused on the voters in the center. Yes they court their base...but more importantly they force the center to choose between their definition of "Democrats" as out of the mainstream secularists or the "Republican" position they identify as positive, patriotic, compassionate, and favorable to family and faith.
At the same time, even though Republicans hold a majority position, they haven’t yet adopted a good portion of the positions held by the right…because they also understand the reality that requires them to court the center in order to secure an all important majority coalition. The right gets angry too…but the Republican Party has been able to manage the leadership of the far right. In contrast to Democrats, they realize they have to win elections first and foremost…and then they have the opportunity to promote their shared (although not always identical) agendas. They too have politicians that some within the Party don’t like…but they realize the demographics sometimes require as much. They support Arlen Specter because that’s the best they can do in that particular situation.
In the end, one could find opportunities to apply the Truman axiom to both Republicans and Democrats. At the same time, I believe it is an absurd construct because it is, in fact, the epitome of a simplistic rationale that seeks to gloss over the realities on the ground in any particular race. It sounds good…but once again one must determine what one is attempting to satisfy…the predisposition to paint the fully gray world black and white in order to immediately feel better…or enacting the desired change that comes slowly over time by doing the hard work and facing the tough realities. There is another saying that I find more apropos…“If wishes were horses, then beggars would ride".
Quite frankly, unless Democrats line up a few more ducks, it won’t matter if they quack at all. Beyond that, if we keep pouring more water on the backs of the ducks we do have, we’ll soon be dining on some wholly unsatisfying duck soup.
Thanks again for your comments and I hope to hear more of your thoughts!
Daniel
3 On July 12, 2006 at 9:40 AM, Brian Malloy wrote —
Dear Daniel,
I found your response very illuminating. Let me begin by apologizing for my description of your argument as "simplistic." I was wrong in that assessment and I am sorry.
Second, let me agree with your basic assumption that:
I have argued that the Democratic Party seems unable to focus on winning back control of the House and the Senate as it cannot seem to reach a consensus that could establish the basis upon which to build a majority coalition that could unseat the Republican hold on power.
It is this above observation that prompted my respons where I maintained that we need a democratic party whose consensus falls along what I believe to be traditional "democratic" lines: opposition to the war in Iraq, timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, defense of those who are suffering from prejudice or discrimination.
The main focus of my response was that the democratic party lacks focus because there are two factions: (1) a centrist faction consisting of Hillary and her followers, (2) a leftist faction consisting of Russ Feingold and sometimes Howard Dean. I was proposing that the first faction needs to join the second.
However, you seemed to offer a compelling argument that my idea of having the centrist faction swing to the left won't work because:
I am opposed to discrimination and I support gay marriage…but I realize that in the end it is partly my responsibility to change the hearts and minds of the people I encounter. Sure it would be easier to say I want all Democratic
politicians to vote the right way all the time…but I’m not so naïve as to fail to realize that they have to remain in office if I am even going to have a chance of getting the equality I seek. The truth is that gay marriage isn’t yet an issue favored by a majority of Americans…and if I don’t give my politicians some wiggle room, they may well be replaced by a far worse Republican politician…who often has to juggle positions as well. While it doesn’t always make me happy, I accept these political realities
Moreover, you challenged my assertion that the democrats would become a winning party if the centrist joined the more leftist members:
I have to inquire as to the basis upon which you believe that if all Democratic candidates were “real" Democrats, then Democrats would suddenly become a majority Party?
My response is that I actually have no proof -- unfortunately. And maybe I'm completely wrong. As you rightly point out, there is no concensus in the democratic party, no consistent platform, no uniform voice. Heretofore, the republicans been united, the democrats have been factured.
How can the democratic party unite? How can they formulate the concensus position that they currently lack? I have no easy solution to this. My hope lies with people like Russ Feingold where he unequivocally stated his opinions on these issues in the "Meet the Press" of June 25th where he was completely clear about (1) a timeline for withdrawal, (2) censure of Bush, (3) wiretapping, and I believe he even came out in favor of gay marriage (but I couldn't find it in the transcript).
The Lieberman/Lamont thing is progressing. Lieberman has started his own party "Lieberman for Connecticut." I personally believe that Lieberman is hurting the democratic party. But your final point is most relevant, the democrats need to get more ducks in a row or they won't be quacking in November. Especially in view of the rampant voter fraut that is alleged in so many articles.
Trackback Pings
© Copyright 2024
Post a comment