During the Democratic convention, there was an argument played out between the Blue-dog Democrat and the Progressive Democrat mythology of campaigning (at least on the TV punditocracy patrol). The two competing wings of the party strain to claim their hold on the direction of the party, while trying to win the White House.
These two camps in the Democratic party are at odds. Progressives (like the fantastic Ms. Maddow) contend that the Democratic Party haven’t proposed real reforms, spoken “the truth,” and thus, they keep losing elections.
The other camp, the Blue-Dog Democrats, contend the party must be more moderate and tone down the gay rights, anti-gun language/rhetoric, in order to appeal to the center of the country and not appear so out of touch with “traditional American values.”
Let’s take a long, hard, self-reflective look at which wing's argument of the Democratic Party holds more water with their current idea of how to affect change in this country by electing Democrats to the White House consistently (term after term):
Blue-Dog Democrats – centrist (Democratic Leadership Council) Democrats who are like former President Bill Clinton. Triangulation, and offering modest reforms (step-by-step) is the best way to not only bolster the parties hold on power, but to also enact meaningful change that can take hold while maintaining power long-term.
Progressives – Democrats who are socially liberal and populist type in nature. Raise taxes on the wealthiest portions of the population to distribute the wealth more fairly…almost a socialism kind of thing. Support those inner city communities and provide programs to help those people dig their way out of poverty.
There are many reasons why the Democrats haven’t won more than 1 Presidential election (I don’t count Bill’s 2nd win) since 1978: this B-squared (blow-hard blogger) has a unique perspective to draw from, and I believe I know the real reasons for failure and how Dems can hold that important Presidential power and why
the Presidency is the most important political office that Dems must be willing to give up virtually anything to get that office.Why is the Presidency the most important office to hold?** It goes to the modes of change in the history of this country. Change in this country, traditionally and historically, has come in one of two forms: 1. Supreme Court Rulings and 2. a popular President using the bully pulpit to call upon the people or make a case for a specific change. A political party can hold both houses of Congress by massive majorities, but without a President to sign a bill they are largely screwed and still don’t have the pulpit to address the people with one, consistent voice. Even with no control over Congress by vote, the President’s party holds significant power by setting the agenda and being able to allow bills to even get to the floor much less a vote on them.
1. The Presidency must be goal number one, above all else. If we want sweeping “Progressive” reforms (eg: Brown –vs- Board of Education, Roe –vs- Wade), the Supreme Court is the easiest, fastest why to force people to change in a radical way. However, this method is a long-term approach that is largely untenable. It is also a potentially divisive method, as we shall recall previous examples of SC rulings.
2. The other way to bring consistent change via Presidency is through enacting step-by-step reforms. When teaching children, we teach small steps to build upon small steps in order to effect a change of skill level. What we don’t do is give students a number line, review the names of the numbers, and then say “Time to start adding!” No, no, no. You skipped the step of explaining what the numbers mean. America will not vote consistently for a candidate who calls for radical ideas/reforms (eg: giving gays the right to marry). This country is not built to make such changes voluntarily and will be easily deterred for supporting such a candidate by the demonizing opposition.
* My unique perspective comes from growing up in “the Heartland” of America, while still holding these far left views. When you grow up in these Republican areas (the state I hail from has voted Republican for president for years on end) you get to know HOW these people think, even if you come to despise it. The old axiom here (of sorts, I don’t recall exact wording) holds true: “To know thine enemy is to defeat thine” enemy”, or “hold your friends close and your enemies closer.” The progressives don’t get the enemy, they don’t understand their enemy…they believe that if they just explain their positions, they can defeat/win-over the rural American, white voter.
Whoever said “the truth shall set you free” was right, but it is not applicable in the case the progressives want it to be. Their truth, they believe will set these rural voters “free,” but do they really want to be “free,” and their definition of “free” stands in stark contrast to what progressives would interpret “free” to be.
Onto the reasons why the Democratic Party has failed to achieve the Presidency:
1.
THE MESSAGE – Look I am a progressive liberal. I want marriage rights for gays, I want to legalize marijuana, I want broad abortion rights, education about sex in schools, free condoms, legalizing and regulating sex workers of all stripes, complete removal of any mention of any “God” in public and on our currency…but the Progressives are like OCGM….they don’t get it.
I love the liberals, the “crazy” liberals (like Sen. Barbara Boxer, Sen. Diane Feinstein, Florida’s Robert Wexler, Ms. Maddow, Mr. Olbermann). I would most likely vote for them any day of the week and twice on Sunday’s. But, what they have never understood or refuse to “get” is that you don’t win national elections with those types of views in today’s America.
Progressives - Like it or not, you must play to the middle of the country in order to win voters in a national election, as Bill Clinton did in 1992 (but, even then, Perot helped him a ton). We can get the change we believe in, the change we support, the change the people stuck in lower middle class need, but it can only come through a massive wave (5-6) of Supreme Court nominees, or through incremental change that shows those resistant middle America voters that all WILL be okay if you open the door a creak. And creak-by-creak we can get what we want. But by going for all the marbles at once with someone too progressive, too liberal, we make it far to easy for them to shriek with
fear of the unknown.
It is also apparent to this blogger that (as I believe I have also written somewhere on this blog) the right-wing has a much easier case to pitch with. Trying to explain a federal bureaucracy is infinitely tougher than saying, “They are stealing your money for their pet projects, so lets lower taxes and get our money back.”
It is also apparent to this blogger that Democrats have consistently done a shitty job of clearly explaining how lowering taxes for individuals and families can come back and cause higher taxes from the state you live in, and higher costs for car/house maintenance because the roads are worse, which causes more accidents and general automobile problems. Democrats have also done a shitty job nationwide election cycle after election cycle of clearly/concisely explaining how those low prices at Shit-Mart lead to lower paying jobs, and jobs being shifted overseas to keep profits up. In short, the Democratic Party has been abysmal at demonstrating that lower taxes will result in higher costs elsewhere that will retard their quality of life.
2.
ORGANIZATION – democrats are also perennial losers in national elections because their organizations are not nearly as streamlined as the republican bases is…it can’t be. First, the republicans build through churches, and rural Americans who support more conservative views tend not to move out of their house, thus making them easier to find. Liberals, who tend to live in or near big metropoli, are more transient, and harder to keep track of. Moreover, progressives are so diverse in their views, interests due to the endless possibilities in the metropolis that they don’t tend to join a huge homogeneous group like rural church-goers.
Unions have traditionally been strong allies for organizing support for democrats, but that has shown to not be either reliable enough to get those voters to turn out (which I wouldn’t think is true), or more likely, unable to get the large numbers of voters the church’s get. Moreover, union jobs have vanished at a dramatic pace, and even these people are also typically in working class areas (eg: car factories) in the rural areas, which have some of those votes stripped by the social church group issues.
Republicans are great at cranking out their base vote, and it has helped for many, many elections nationwide. This is another reason why Dems have been unsuccessful.
3.
CAMPAIGN TACTICS/STRATEGERY – perhaps my biggest gripe of all with the “Progressive” wing of the party. Every single time I hear from these people, they want to run a principled, decent, above-board campaign…which is why we keep losing.
Politics, as they say, is the ultimate American blood sport. But, the high and mighty left wing of the party refuses to acknowledge this fact and work within the full parameters of the current system, whether you like the system or not (this blogger has made clear in previous posts that he hates the system as is).
The right wing is exceptionally good at attacking Democrats negatively. “Liberal” has become a dirty word. “Progressive” has become a dirty word. We have been branded as “soft.” Liberals often say they won’t “lower themselves” to match the tactics of the Republicans. Therein lies the essential problem.
No one likes negative political ads. But, again this election year, we have seen they are effective and damaging. Obama, who
should be easily winning this election in the polls, and had a massive lead over OCGM, has seen his lead shrink to miniscule levels, if not go below OCGM. Why did this happen? OCGM, and Dubya in 2000/2004 to Gore then Kerry, did exactly what they know how to do: They ran negative ads subtly and not so subtly calling Obama un-American, and un-patriotic, and a Muslim.
The Democratic Party and its candidates have been pathetic when it comes to attacking their opponent. Moreover, they’ve been overly nice and deferential when attacking their opponent. As I’ve called for on this blog before, the Democrats MUST grow some gonads and run negative ads that hit hard on the nominee of the day.
Even if it’s not negative ads, Democrats need to be better at framing an issue. What was the inheritance tax, is now called the death tax because some Republicans focus-grouped how to re-frame the issue and make it a winner. Democrats have sucked at this for years, and we need to be better at being able to effectively re-name something that suits the progressive ideals. Progressives need to not be so high and mighty on their totem pole and demand that any Presidential Campaign they support must run on the highest of ethical principles possible. I’m all for campaign ethics reform, but by not playing dirty like Republicans you lose a ton of ground by not running negative, nasty ads back at them. Middle Americans want someone who is going to fight for them and what they need. But, how can they support a candidate who shows no fight, no spine…not even for him/herself? Middle Americans see weak candidates when Democrats go the high and mighty route, not to mention them being offended by the mere suggestion that a campaign is better than them (which is what it sounds like to these voters). It sounds elitist, and smug…something which turns off Middle America.
4.
PATHOLOGICAL FACTORS – Democrats have demonstrated again and again that they do not understand the pathology of the Middle American voter. Pathology, defined as “the structural and functional deviations from the normal that constitute disease or characterize a particular disease,” in this case the disease refers to the life of a rural voter, is what defines the behavior of an organism. It defines and determines the thinking of an animal. It is, essentially, their worldview. Not understanding the enemy’s worldview has been a damning and harsh reality the Democratic Party has had to live with for low these many decades.
Growing up in that pathology that was constantly reinforced by the culture surrounding my young childhood, allows me to greater understand their worldview (how they think and why they think it). Some of this is not rocket science; It’s basic knowledge you can get from an entry-level freshman college psychology course.
As mentioned earlier, people tend to fear the most what they do not understand, and people do not understand how the federal government can work for them and make their lives better. They are afraid of the federal government (in reality, they should be afraid of the feds, so I can’t blame there) because they don’t understand how it really works. What they believe to be true about the federal government has been largely taught by right-wing propaganda, because (and this goes back to number 1) they have been more effective at getting their message out.
The pathology of the white Middle American voter is not a complex one to grasp. These are largely simple people with simple views and sorry to state, simple minds. They see broad change as a dangerous threat to their livelihood. These are people who can accept small changes at a time, if you frame it the right way and don’t attempt to shove it down their throats.
Looking back at desegregation brought about by the Supreme Court, which is the one way that we can have sweeping change in this country. People fought that for generations because they were shoved into it; Hell, some in the wacko-south still gather young white men and feed them psychological poison, telling them that black people are not the equal of the white man. The confederate flag is SLOWLY dying and going away as the older generation, but young at the precipice of that historical change in this country, are dying off. The late Sen. Strom Thurmond, risen from the dead and given some sodium pentothal, would still most likely harbor the same KKK-type views he held for decades. He just masked it better as he got older.
I am not calling Middle Americans (rural voters, lower middle class voters) KKK members in hiding. I am merely demonstrating that they don’t take to radical change well at all and it is more likely that you win them over with solid reasoning, a plea for equality, a plea to their better nature, and concrete ways that changing X policy will benefit them now and their children of the future.
This is why the Progressive message will never appeal to these voters…yes, I said never. Progressives (including me) want to move to fast, to quickly, and it makes these voters cautious that the Democratic Party is trying to pull the wool over their eyes and take their guns, let gay people have sex in public gardens, and hold flag burnings in the town square every weekend. Naturally cautious these people are, so it is best to provide baby steps of progress.
5.
OVERALL – one final thing to note here is the idea of recurrence. I say recurrence in the sense that with following the Clinton/triangulation/Blue Dog Democrats plan short term, we can build a strong case and well of support for Progressivism long-term.
These voters don’t trust government because they don’t get the machinery of it, but they also don’t support it because it has failed them in the past. Why has it failed? Democrats who may have gained power based on promises of grand plans (sweeping reforms), put into place plans to address problems for real people, but that takes time to set up, and the republicans come along 4 years later and lay out their simple, effective message: Democrats have taken tons of your money, have you seen any benefits from it? Invariably the answer is “No.” Not just because it takes time, but because Republicans who may hold power in the Congress impede this progress. Remember the shut-down during the Clinton years that inevitably caused Monica-gate? That was because the Republicans, who had control, refused to deal with Clinton and screwed him and the Democratic party in the long run by killing themselves in the short run.
This causes voters in these areas to give up and vote Republican to get their money back from the government because they didn’t see any benefits from the money they gave. And whatever benefits they did see, they don’t really see it because Democrats fail to keep on message (back to #1).
By giving up, this causes the collapse of these programs in their infancy (eg: Welfare to Work, HeadStart) despite demonstrating great results.
Following the Blue-Dog Democrat approach we make/enact/implement small reform after small reform that shows that when implemented properly, the programs we enact do benefit whitey in America. As the momentum builds and Middle America starts to see the progress and how it’s not destroying their lives, but making their lives better, they will be more likely to raise children who see those benefits and support such causes, while parents will be slowly brought into the fold.
This is how you build a base of support, a base of disciples, a base of indoctrinated people. You start with small, but meaningful reforms that soften up the voter, and prove to be enriching to them, and that in turn, creates the positive vibes for deeper, longer lasting reform. All of which can put America on a path to Progressive values in a generation.
These are the reasons why this left-wing liberal who supports those crazy causes highlighted within this post, supported the moderate (perhaps even conservative) Hillary Clinton as the Presidential nominee. I didn’t like Hillary because of her views, because of some sick man-love for Bill (tho, I do love Bill)…I supported her because she met all the criteria to be ELECTED to the White House. Most importantly, perhaps, given this 24/7 media/news cycle with bloggers, the attack chops to fight, fight, fight.
Progressives, in the short term have consistently been pushing a seriously flawed argument for getting Democrats into the White House in a consistent manner.
The Blue-Dog Democrats (& DLC), while I despise many of them (eg: Harry Reid, John Murtha, Evan Bayh) for their lack of leadership on several issues, have the right idea…Democrats all-around have just done an abysmal job of addressing reasons for failure #1-4.
The
Progressives need to step aside for the time being and let the Blue-Dogs do their work. The Progressives are sabotaging the work done by Blue-Dogs year after year with their outrageous rhetoric and infighting within the party that doesn’t allow the party to speak with one, consistent voice. And speaking loudly, clearly, effectively, and forcefully with
one, consistent voice is how you frame issues, and win Presidential elections.
We do have better ideas. We do. But better ideas, not explained well, and not fought for, are worth nothing. The Democratic Party can do better for itself, and can do better for America’s lower middle class if they are given a chance to do so.
