Not All Of Our Big Ideas Are Related to Policy

Less than seven months removed from the 2004 elections that gave Republicans their greatest control of Washington D.C. since the 1920's, it is not particularly surprising that even when Republicans in Washington are unpopular, Democrats are almost equally unpopular. From the latest Democracy Corps polling memo:
With President Bush's re-election and significant majorities in both chambers of Congress, Republicans won unprecedented control in Washington after the 2004 election, but this control comes with a higher level of public accountability. The sharp decline in public attitudes toward President Bush and Republicans in Congress is not surprising given the increasingly cynical views Americans hold of the country's current direction, with clear majorities saying the country is moving in the wrong direction and consumer confidence continuing to fall, led by growing pessimism about the future of the economy. The only good news for Republicans is that Democrats have thus far failed to capitalize on Republican weakness by building support for their own ideas and values, although Democrats' united opposition to Republican plans that met with widespread disapproval certainly set the stage for such gains.
We have seen this over and over again. Even as approval for Republicans in Congress declines, approval for Democrats tends to decline at an equal rate. As badly as Republicans are screwing up, the electorate still doesn't like us any better. That is pretty much to be expected, since as I already mentioned 2004 was the best election for Republicans in several generations. Right now, the country clearly is not enamoured with Democrats. Personally, I do not think it is such a big deal, since it is growing obvious that the nation does not like what Republicans are doing, and it is growing equally obvious to the nation that Democrats are united in opposition to Republicans. That is a start, and we should not expect to start deign Democrats rise as Republicans fall until we have actually offered a different vision for government. We are still a long way from doing that.

Even so, there are some early signs that Democrats might be positioned to make real gains in the not too distant future:

While President Bush's standing has clearly deteriorated over the last few months, his decline has been small relative to the Congress. In January, the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll gave Congress a small but positive net approval rating (41 percent approve, 40 percent disapprove); in this week's poll, Congress' approval has plummeted to 33 percent approve, with 51 percent now disapproving - a 19-point net shift in just four months. The Gallup poll earlier this month showed similarly dire numbers for the Congress - 35 percent approve, 57 percent disapprove. The NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll also finds that 65 percent of Americans feel Congress has different priorities than they do for the country.

And while Republicans in Congress may blame Democratic obstructionism, American voters aren't buying it. In March, the Pew survey showed Democrats in Congress (37 percent approve, 44 percent disapprove) and Republicans in Congress (39 percent approve, 44 percent disapprove) on equal footing. Less than two months later, Democrats in Congress have seen slight improvement (39 percent approve, 41 percent disapprove) while Republicans in Congress have seen their numbers fall precipitously to 35 percent approval and 50 percent disapproval.

The electoral consequences of these shifting attitudes are emerging. A plurality of Americans now say their representative does not deserve to be re-elected (42 percent re-elect, 45 percent someone new), and Democrats hold a 7-point advantage as the party Americans would prefer to see controlling Congress after the 2006 elections (47 to 40 percent). It is important to state again that this margin is built not on Democratic gains - the Democratic number in the generic congressional contest has remained between 46 and 48 percent in monthly Democracy Corps polling this year - but on Republican losses.

OK, so there is a silver of hope. However, I vehemently disagree with the way that Democracy Corps suggest that we walk into that light:
But united Democratic opposition has undoubtedly played a critical role in these Republican losses and has set the stage for Democrats to make gains - potentially significant gains that could alter the fundamental political landscape and put to rest any thoughts of a Republican realignment - if they can translate Democratic values into a positive agenda that tackles fundamental challenges such as retirement security, the cost and quality of modern health care, education, the federal deficit, national security, and the role of the United States in the world.
Oh no. Did I really just read that wonky laundry list? I think Democracy Corps is a great firm, but reading the last passage saddens me somewhat. It seems that whenever Democrats are struggling with a given demographic, our only response is to try and develop some sort of policy proposal that will appeal to that group or demographic.

For seven decades, Democrats held the majority of power in Washington D.C. We used government to promote our agenda, since the governing party receives tremendous amounts of free media. We used government to unite our coalition, which is possible when you are the ruling party since you can indeed pass a series of laws designed to appeal to targeted communities and demographics. We used single issue groups to define our beliefs, which turned into a series of laundry lists rather than broadly defined principles. By contrast, Republicans and conservatives were forced to develop an enormous Noise Machine that could broadcast their message to tens of millions of people even when they were in the minority. They created a huge infrastructure that allowed the different groups in their coalition to unite much better than ours do. They succeed in broadly defining what they stand for to the nation at large. Many Democrats seem to have a difficult time either remembering or realizing that we are no longer the governing party in Washington. Because of this, we can no longer pass policy in Washington. Now, Republicans simultaneously wield their traditional electoral weapon of massive, independent political infrastructure as well as our traditional weapon of being the ruling party. Proposing policy is always the electoral weapon of the governing party, and we need to realize that we no longer wield that weapon. Telling people we have a plan for everything isn't going to get us anywhere.

As Democrats, we need to accept that not all, or even most, of our biggest and best ideas right now related to policy. We need a real message infrastructure independent of government. We need vastly improved organization within our national ideological conversion machines. We need to break out of the single-issue group ghettos we have created for ourselves. None of this has anything to do with policy.

Republicans are indeed screwing up, and as we all know we are yet to reap the benefits. I can only believe that one of the reasons for this is our persistent urge to offer alternative legislation, rather than an alternative vision for government coupled with the infrastructure development necessary to spread that vision across the country. People are not going to vote for Democrats when they believe that we have a plan to reduce the cost of health care. They are going to vote for Democrats when they believe we truly care, in the depths of our souls, about reducing the cost of health care. No policy proposal on earth will ever cause that to take place.



Display:


Democrats still held in contempt because they (none / 0)

have in large part been nothing more than enablers of the Bush agenda.

Democrats did it again on the bankruptcy bill and by all apperances are about to compromise their way into even greater contempt but working a deal with the GOP on Bush's extremely ideological judicial nominations.

by leschwartz on Mon May 23, 2005 at 05:36:05 PM EST

preach, brother (none / 0)

As Democrats, we need to accept that not all, or even most, of our biggest and best ideas right now related to policy. We need a real message infrastructure independent of government. We need vastly improved organization within our national ideological conversion machines. We need to break out of the single-issue group ghettos we have created for ourselves. None of this has anything to do with policy.

I could not agree more.

by desmoulins on Mon May 23, 2005 at 05:45:41 PM EST

Yes! (none / 0)

In fact, the number-one idea the Dems should be pushing right now is not a policy at all.

It's called Look what these Theocratic Extremists are Doing to America.

Yeah, I'm cynical.
by catastrophile on Mon May 23, 2005 at 06:53:25 PM EST

Re: Yes! (3.00 / 1)

I do not think this is the answer.  It might be a feel good strategy to some of the blogers but I would not recomend it as a Democratic strategy.  The fact is most of America are well aware of the relationship between the GOP and the Evangelical community and many do not approve of the everything about the evangelical community they seem to have accepted the relationship.  I think a better answer is about economics.  I have come to understand that the GOP is trying to force the country back into a status that will have a great detriment to Middle America.  Which moves back to a cut throat climate in which only those who play thier game not only prosper but the rest may not able to stay above water.  A nation full of self-employeed consultants that is thier dream.  The Democrats must show that they have a better plan to keep the American dream alive.

At the same time I urge caution when it comes to useing a "Theocratic Extemists" we are a nation where the overwhelming majority believes in God, and looks at religion as a positve force.  It is also true that most of America does not consider itself Evangelical nor does it practice Evangelical views.  But religious people are funny about seeing some of thier fellow religious type attacked, it is almost as if they defned something they do not even agree with in the name of thier faith.  In the end many will see the Evangelicals for what they are, but I would not advise attempting to show them.

by THE MODERATE on Mon May 23, 2005 at 07:39:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I take your point (none / 0)

about the prevalence of faith, but I think most people are also uncomfortable with the idea that the American church could turn into the type of domineering political organization that people came to America to get away from. At least, they would be, if they were thinking about it. Extremism is the enemy, not faith. The movements to ban Darwin and sex education are clear manifestations of extremism opposing knowledge.

I probably could have expressed it more clearly, but "look what they're doing to this country" was intended to include every aspect of the Reep agenda, from expanding the PATRIOT Act to dismantling the safety net to strengthening the global corporate trade regime. They're basically using bait-and-switch tactics to make off with our country, and failure to call them on it is de facto cooperation.

Yeah, I'm cynical.
by catastrophile on Mon May 23, 2005 at 07:58:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I take your point (none / 0)

I think I understand what you are trying to say, but you are saying that some of what the GOP is pushing are really bad ideas, and you have ointed out some specifcs that make that point, just be careful about making it about religion, just saying the GOP has bad ideas and then showing that they are bad ideas and we have better ideas are much better that bring one's faith into it.
by THE MODERATE on Mon May 23, 2005 at 08:26:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes! (none / 0)

Oh and for those who are going to ask here is a link showing religion in America.

http://www.pbs.org/flashpointsusa/20040127/discuss/topic_01/page8.html

by THE MODERATE on Mon May 23, 2005 at 07:54:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Interesting comments there, (none / 0)

but although 59% of the respondents agreed with the statement "Religion plays a large role in my daily life," looking through the comments I only spotted 3 that indicated the government should be more active in promoting religious policies -- and I saw a similar number who strongly agreed with the statement, but pointed out that others had the right to their own beliefs.

It seems for the most part that people, even those who consider themselves very religious, want the government to stay out of their religious lives -- not to promote any faith, and not to restrict people from observing their faith. That's the opposite of theocracy, and that's why I think extremist theocrats works. Nobody's going to hear that and think, "hey, that's me!"

Yeah, I'm cynical.
by catastrophile on Mon May 23, 2005 at 08:16:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Interesting comments there, (none / 0)

I believe that most people are not evangelicals, but to many Christians thier faith is the most important thing the their life.  It is what Christianity is about Christ comes first, that is universal amoung all stripes of Christians, but when the various denominations try to say what following Chirst is then everything goes scattered.  Once again I think you are not totally off base by bring bad ideas to the forefront as a bad idea.  But I would caution again about trying to say that it is an idea advanced though the faith, or you run the risk with uniting the faith, just stick to the idea itself and it will come across easier.
by THE MODERATE on Mon May 23, 2005 at 08:35:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Here! Here! (none / 0)

Ideas. Philosophy. Should those things matter in politics, or should it be a cynical grind of vote buying? I am glad the C. Bowers used the phrase "seven months removed from the 2004 elections that gave Republicans their greatest control of Washington D.C. since the 1920's." Because in these forums, the "regular people" types have already gone on to other things, leaving a rump of left-wing activists to discuss what should and shouldn't be in America. Seven months. Its not ancient history. The average American voted against his economic self-interest because his culture was worth more to him than a dollar. What that means is that Democrats et. al. need to rethink their coalition. What's more important? Gay marriage? Or the environment? What's more important? Abortion or bankruptcy laws? What's more important? Hollywood or peace? Because that is the bottom line result of the Republicans winning. The people aren't voting against a Kerry or a Clinton, or what have you; they are voting against a faction within the Democratic party that they cannot stand.
by Paul Goodman on Mon May 23, 2005 at 08:42:30 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.