Michael Tomasky writes about Republicans vs. Democrats on political strategy:
It seems that once the Democratic nominee is decided — in the current case, that would have been early March — the top Republican and conservative strategists start having conversations. They probably get together and say something like: “OK, John Kerry’s the nominee. In one sentence or maybe two, what do we want the American voting public to be thinking about John Kerry by November 2? The neighbors discussing their votes on election eve — what do we want them to be saying about Kerry?”
The answer they settled on was clearly something to the effect that “he can’t be trusted to fight the war on terror.” Then, once they’ve agreed on that, they say: “Okay. How do we get there from here? What are the stages of the argument?” And then they lay it out, and the stages are exactly as we’ve seen…
Republicans understand the world, and Democrats do not. Republicans know that voters will respond emotionally to character questions, and they know that the media will lap them up like a thirsty dog…
George W. Bush has a record the Democrats should have made mincemeat of. Right about now, the media should be writing, and American voters should be thinking: Golly, a million jobs lost, millions more in poverty, manufacturing down; no WMD’s, 1,000-plus dead, Iraq on the brink of civil war, al-Qaeda larger than ever and still recruiting, acts of worldwide terrorism on the rise, North Korea and Iran responding to the cowboy routine by going nuclear. This should have been easy.
Now, it’s too late for the Democrats to create these narratives. The counter-narrative is too well established.
I generally agree with this. I’m amazed that a party so incredibly hell-bent on retaking the White House could be so inept at doing so. The Democrats have stumbled along these last few months without any apparent strategy at all.
In the Democrats’ defense, they’ve had two disadvantages (well, three, if you include running a lousy candidate): one, they didn’t know who their nominee was going to be until six or seven months ago, so they didn’t have a solid campaign staff in place; two, once they’d chosen that nominee, he was a blank slate, open to being defined by one side or the other.
On the other hand, they’ve known who their opponent was going to be for the LAST FOUR YEARS. They’ve had four years to prepare for this, and they’re blowing it.
Meanwhile, look at the Republicans. Until January or February, they thought their opponent was going to be Howard Dean; parts of Bush’s January State of the Union Address could have been written with him in mind:
We have faced serious challenges together, and now we face a choice: We can go forward with confidence and resolve, or we can turn back to the dangerous illusion that terrorists are not plotting and outlaw regimes are no threat to us… It is tempting to believe that the danger is behind us. That hope is understandable, comforting — and false…
Some in this chamber, and in our country, did not support the liberation of Iraq.
In fact, after the address, word was that the Republicans had been caught off-guard by Kerry’s surge in the primaries. (And didn’t most Democrats vote for Kerry because he was more “electable” than Dean?) Soon after, they switched their focus to Kerry. One reason they could do this so quickly is that they’d previously assembled opposition research on all the Democratic candidates.
For whatever reason, the Republicans are just better at this stuff than Democrats. I think it’s simplistic for Tomasky to say that “liberals tend to want to believe the best about the world” and that this “makes liberals less likely to play on voters’ fears — makes them want to believe that they actually can win a campaign on the issues.” Anyone is capable of believing the best or the worst about the world. But Tomasky is partly right. For whatever reason, Republicans don’t mind playing dirty politics and Democrats do.
Of course, it would help if the Democrats ran a decent candidate. There are 22 Democratic governors out there — maybe next time some of them will run.
I realize that it’s your opinion, and I’ve certainly struggled with the same feelings, but I think it’s hyperbolic and unreasonable to call Kerry a “lousy” candidate; he wasn’t my first choice either (in fact, I didn’t particularly like any of the candidates very much, but I’m behind whomever might get us out of this current horrible situation with this administration). I sometimes think we–Democrats, liberals and/or merely Bush detractors–expect too much from our candidates, and are just never, ever happy with what we have–they don’t come much less decent than W, yet he’s managed to galvanize half a nation behind him. I found Digby’s comments yesterday interesting and am trying to take them to heart:
“I just wish that Dems could put on their game faces and try to sell the guy a little bit instead of constantly writing his epitaph. He’s really a good man, you know. He’s spent his life in public service, trying to do the right thing, working hard and carrying our agenda. He’s our most liberal nominee in decades. He’s smart and energetic and he’s never been tainted by corruption or scandal. Is it so hard for Democrats to get behind a man like this or are we just as shallow as everybody else? Would we too be happier with a brand name in a suit?”
He really isn’t a bad man, and he’s far, far better than Bushco. Yes, I’d like to be excited about his candidacy, but I really can’t say that he’s a lousy choice; I’ve seen the depths of lousiness the past four years, and our candidate –flawed as he is–isn’t deserving of that descriptor.
An important element your post implies but doesn’t come right out and say is that the Democrats don’t really have key strategists guiding the party between and leading up to major national elections. Or at least, certainly not like the Republicans do. That’s why it’s so astonishing that only now are the Clinton strategists getting involved in the Kerry campaign. Despite its deep (and I think inevitably more insurpassable) divides, the Republicans have strategists who fight for the party, no matter what, and who are able to put all of these different constituents under one, “conservative” umbrella.
Finally, it seems that Democrats ran scared away from Dean’s passion, and as most observers predicted, it cost them in the end. When Pat Buchanan can write a book like How the Right Went Wrong and call the Iraqi War perhaps the biggest blunder in the last forty years but still say that he supports Bush because at least Bush sticks by what he believes, it highlights the weakness of the Democrat’s moderatist move. You’re right, though, that it’s amazing that the Democratic strategists have missed the simple response that Jon Stewart was able to make immediately after Buchanan’s comments: “So Bush says, ‘I’m going to drive this bus into a wall,’ and we respect him because he didn’t blink?!?!”
Now I’m depressed. (Though I’m glad I found your blog.)
Are you serious? Democrats are the undisputed masters of “creating a narrative.” What have they been doing for FOUR SOLID YEARS–other than churn out an astounding number of Bush-bashing books/movies/sites/ad nauseum which have very successfully convinced you and your little automaton friends that Bush is “dumb” and “scary” and “Hitler.” The fact that the American public is buying the spin on Kerry is the simple fact that it’s true–and the fact that they aren’t buying four solid years of democrat smear tactics just tells you the public isn’t as dumb as the author of this site!
What’s true? That he shot himself in order to get purple hearts? That’s whay Michelle Malkin’s been pushing. What else have you got “Keith”? (This should be good!)
Keith, you write that the Democrats have “very successfully convinced [me and my] little automaton friends that Bush is ‘dumb’ and ‘scary’ and ‘Hitler.'”
I never mentioned Hitler anywhere in my post. Some fringe groups may have compared Bush to Hitler, but ascribing such a view to me when I myself haven’t espoused it is just lazy thinking.
Another example of lazy thinking is saying that “the Democrats” have put out books/movies/sites etc. such as those you describe. “They.” One of the most basic characteristics of lazy thinking is the indiscriminate use of generalizations.
Stop doing it. Don’t be a lazy thinker.
Thanks.
Kerry was the right choice. In the “immediate” post-9/11 period, anyone other than a veteran would have had no chance.
I think alot of it boils down to the difficulty of laying into the Commander-in-Chief while we have troops under attack.
Tomasky is right, the gloves have to come off.
The race is close… and there is enough time to go.