MyDD :: Republicans Struggle to Find Message for 2006

Republicans Struggle to Find Message for 2006

by Jonathan Singer, Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 02:24:09 AM EST

For too long, the media have bought into the Republican meme that the Democrats have no ideas. During the debate over Social Security, for example, reporters harped on the fact that the Democrats had not presented an alternative to President Bush's partial privatization plan, neglecting to mention that the Democrats indeed had a program -- it was called Social Security, and it has worked astonishingly well for 70 years. Even today, in story after story, journalists peddle the line that Democrats are devoid of a platform heading into November's midterms, and it's unlikely that news of an developing Democratic platform will sate reporters lust for stories on the lack of Democratic cohesiveness.

Finally, a couple of reporters for The Washington Post, Dan Balz and Jonathan Weisman, had an epiphany: the Republicans don't have a unified positive platform for the Congressional elections this fall and appear to be less likely than the Democrats to develop one.

While it is a Republican refrain that Democrats criticize Bush but have no positive vision, for now the governing party also has no national platform around which lawmakers are prepared to rally.

Every effort so far to produce such a platform has stumbled.

[...]

Because of these realities, Republicans have adopted a midterm strategy designed to avoid making the election a national referendum on their performance or one that focuses on their policy divisions. Their goal is to concentrate less on the kind of positive message they have challenged the Democrats to produce and more on framing a choice that says, however unhappy voters may be right now with the Republicans' leadership, things would be worse if Democrats were in charge.

First of all, the inability to create a cohesive strategy is not a strategy. If the Republicans can't come up with a positive agenda, they are not devilishly smart for localizing the election -- they just can't come up with a positive agenda.

The lack of a positive agenda does not mean that the Republicans are going to be able to localize the midterm elections, however, nor does it mean that they are even trying to. For all of the talk of localizing the elections this fall, the Republicans are sure expending a lot of effort trying to make the elections a referendum on potential Democratic control of Congress. Why else would they try to spin so many stories of the supposed lack of a Democratic platform?

There are two fundamental problems with the Republican strategy of making this election about the Democrats.

This, in and of itself, helps nationalize the elections. The more talk there is of a potential Democratic Congress, the more focus there is on the national Democratic strategy -- or even the lack thereof -- the more November's elections become about the two parties, rather than a series of contests between candidates of the two parties. In an environment in which the Democrats hold a double-digit generic ballot lead, even among likely voters, such nationalization can only hurt the Republicans.
All of the talk about Democrats leads voters to focus more on the Democratic Party and Democratic proposals than the Republican Party and Republican proposals. One of the few advantages Congressional Republicans still have today is that voters have not yet tuned them out, as they have the President. But if they hand the Democrats the bully pulpit by continually talking about Democratic proposals -- or, again, even the supposed lack of Democratic proposals -- there goes their ability to connect with the American voter.

Look, the Democrats don't have this election won yet. Even if they are winning the tactical battles of this campaign -- and I do believe that they are -- there are still a number of institutional barriers inhibiting their path to victory this fall. All the same, the Republicans are falling apart at the seems now, and if they can't get their act together soon, incumbency and gerrymandering aren't going to keep them in control of the United States House.

Tags: Republicans, House 2006 (all tags)

Permalink :: 13 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Republicans Struggle to Find Message for 2006 (3.00 / 1)

I think we do need some sort of national plan for this election if we're going to nationalize it successfully. Showing the voters how badly Republicans have messed things up will obviously take us a long way, but only by showing them what we plan to do instead--and better--can we lock it up.

I'm not talking about a wonky 17 point plan about more jobs, national health care, better schools, etc. Sure, voters want to hear about all that, and it's important to have this for talking point purposes during interviews, speeches and debates, etc.

But I mean something more gut-level and inspiring, to give voters a strong, positive, hopeful message that tells them that Democrats (and thus by implication not Republicans) are on their side, that we're the real party of the American people (and thus not the party of the rich, powerful and priviledged, i.e. the GOP), and that we've got what it takes to get the country back on track and feeling good about itself again--and, of course, safe and secure.

Yeah, I know, we've got this silly "Together, we can do better" campaign that sounds like a PSA for mentally challenged valley girl cheerleaders. But is anyone going to be moved by that, especially in today's political climate? To the folks who came up with that snoozer: Together, you'd better do better. We need something that inspires people and makes them want to vote for us, not puts them to sleep.

by kovie on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 03:15:19 AM EST

I wonder if Rahm's (none / 0)

media event last week spurred that WaPo article on.

by Newsie8200 on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 06:22:35 AM EST

Re: Republicans Struggle to Find Message for 2006 (none / 0)

In today's WaPo, political cartoonist Tom Toles has a pretty good idea of what the Republican message will be in 2006.

by fafnir on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 07:21:36 AM EST

Nationalizing only part of it (none / 0)

Former House Speaker Tip O'Neill once observed, "All politics are local." While focusing on the failings of the Republican national leadership, winning back Congress comes down to local organizing. Democratic Senate candidates can run more against the national GOP than House candidates, although they can tie their Republian opponents to the albatross of the Bush Administration. However, it still comes down to financing and activating the local Democratic base, which the netroots can greatly assist. One message does not fit all when it comes to local campaigns, since different constituencies have different interests and perspectives.

One pitfall of nationalizing a local campaign is the appalling lack of leadership among national Democrats. There are no coattails upon which to ride; associating one's self with the likes of Reid, Pelosi or even Hillary Clinton -- who I actually like, but who has demonstrated an appalling lack of leadership skills -- isn't going to win votes back home. This, as much as any year, is when Democratic Congressional candidates will have to take a highly decentralized approach, except to the extent of linking their Republican candidates to the failed policies of the Bush Administration and its lackies in Congress.

by MoCrash on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 08:05:06 AM EST

Re: check out PA-04 (none / 0)

Melissa Hart, R, PA-4, is kicking off her reelection campaign today and she's running as the candidate who can bring home the most bacon. No mention of Bush, Iraq, social security, medicare drug plan or any other legislation she's voted for in lockstep with her party. Heck, from her press release, you'd
have a hard time figuring out she's a Republican.
I guess she's not very proud to be one.

link:

http://www.keystonepolitics.com/Article2 801.html

by phillydem on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 09:11:45 AM EST

Re: Republicans Struggle to Find Message for 2006 (none / 0)

we've got this silly "Together, we can do better" campaign that sounds like a PSA for mentally challenged valley girl cheerleaders.

Sing it, Brother kovie! (Or Sister, or whatever...)

Reckon it this way: most Dems' hearts sink when they switch on the TV and see Pelosi or Reid or any leading Dem trying to make the case for the party. (Even Feingold was much better in his censure floor speech than what I saw of him on the talk shows on the subject.)

And, as well as leadership, the Dems are short of an answer to the What do you stand for? question which is not a laundry list of policies.

Which the Together, we can make it better document is almost bound to be.

Sometime this millennium, there's going to be a Dem with a political vision who can take control of the party and make a great leap forward (to coin a phrase).

Perhaps Feingold is he (though I doubt it somehow). Perhaps it'll take another 20 or 30 years. (The last - the only - guy to do it was FDR: and he needed a Great Depression!)

Failing such a paragon, what Dems need is a shed-load of patience.

A commodity they seem to be even shorter of than leadership...

by skeptic06 on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 09:56:11 AM EST

Re: Republicans Struggle to Find Message for 2006 (none / 0)

I would assert that John F. Kennedy in 1960 offered a vision into which Democrats could sink their teeth.

Your point is legitimate, though. Democrats are notoriously bad at framing and have tendency to rely solely on policy wonkism to demonstrate a program ... which is insufficient, no matter how sound those positions or important the issues, given the infantile attention span of the American voter. Republicans slogan well, govern poorly -- but the latter has not yet been a serious handicap.

by MoCrash on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 03:00:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Republicans Struggle to Find Message for 2006 (none / 0)

Trouble was, JFK only got control of his party posthumously.

In his lifetime, he was having terrible trouble getting stuff passed by Congress. And (following Bull Connor's demonstration of Southern hospitality) he'd not long embarked on trying to pass a civil rights bill which, as I recall, was getting nowhere when he was shot.

And, even post-assassination, LBJ needed GOP votes to pass the bill. He then got his big majority in 64 and passed the Great Society bills - but, again, with the benefit of a JFK halo.

by skeptic06 on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 06:05:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Republicans Struggle to Find Message for 2006 (none / 0)

Admittedly, Kennedy wasn't an extremely effective president ... although there are indications that he was growing in office, notably in his handling of the Cuban missile crisis following the Bay of Pigs disaster (learning, of course, that he couldn't trust the hawks in the Pentagon and CIA) and his belated embrace of civil rights. My point on JFK is that he was a Democrat who articulated a clear vision, unlike the present-day Democratic leaders. That, and a little help from Hizzoner da Mayor, put him in the White House.

As for LBJ getting GOP votes in passing progressive policies, one has to remember that Congress was still dominated by conservative Southern Democrats like Russell and Eastland and there were principled Republican moderates, such as Javits. Although some cross the aisle ideologically, Congress -- especially the Senate -- that the partisan split may be greater now than at any time of the post-war period.

by MoCrash on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 10:51:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Republicans Struggle to Find Message for 2006 (none / 0)

It's brother--just not Big Brother!

And yes, I share your skepticism about today's Dems. They seem determined to perpetuate their "let's not offend anyone and just make nice" approach to politics, even though it doesn't work, and has never worked, in today's smashmouth political climate.

Sure, they snipe and whine and make snide remarks about how unfair Republicans are and how poorly they're running the government. But when it comes to actually holding them accountable for their actions, they do nothing. And when someone breaks ranks and tries to do something, they attack THEM, and not the GOP. It's enough to make you want to, oh, I don't know, do something really bad to them like, say, not like them very much for at least 20 minutes.

I've said it before (on DailyKos) and will say it again. These "leaders" are worse than useless, and will not change unless we force them to change from the net and grass roots. They are clueless, spineless, gutless and directionless, and have absolutely no incentive (positive or negative) to do what it takes to really lead.

They've been out in the political wilderness that is being the minority party for so long that they can't imagine any other reality, so they have no tangible positive incentive for taking the lead. It's a ghetto of the mind mentality. And they've gotten so comfortable with being in the minority that they don't have a negative incentive to take the lead, and in fact have a positive incentive to not do so. Why shake things up when yours isn't THAT bad a ghetto, compared to real ones?

Plus, they're so scared of the GOP that they have a very powerful negative incentive to not take the lead. They're still reeling from '94, '02 and '04, and of course Clinton's impeachment and Kerry's swift-boating (oh, and btw, thanks a lot JFK, for NOT fighting back--that really put the 'ole spirit back in the party). Gingrich might be gone (although he keeps barking loudly from the sidelines), but they still have put bulls Rove, Mehlman and Cheney to be afraid of, along with their army of right-wing pundits and smear-mongerers.

Together, they can frankly kiss my ass, because their pathetic non-leadership is impressing no one and hurting the party, at a time when we especially need them. And it's not as if they have any excuses anymore as the GOP is tanking and it's finally safe to come out and play--even for these bubble boys and girls.

The ONLY thing that I think is going to get them to get off their asses and take charge is if we in the net and grass roots force them to, e.g. by running strong challengers against them, by attacking them here and elsewhere, by bombarding them with emails and calls, by showing up at town hall meetings and letting them know how we feel, by letting their constituents know how poor a job they've been doing (I think this one could be especially effective--remember, all politics is ultiamtely local), etc. The only thing that's going to get them to change is fear--fear of losing their seats and party leadership positions--because it's the only thing that's ever gotten comfortably entrenched interests to change.

Of course, that is exactly what Kos and Jerome are talking about in their new book.

by kovie on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 04:33:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Republicans Struggle to Find Message for 2006 (none / 0)

Add to this an interesting article from U.S. News and World Reports that says a poll they conducted puts "morale" issues at the bottom of the priority list for Americans and that takes away the only thing the Republicans vaguely have going for them.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articl es/060314/14poll.htm

Jamie
http://www.intoxination.net

by hovercrafter on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 12:23:43 PM EST

Grains of Truth (none / 0)

This article is deliberately vague because the Republicans naturally like to run on issues that they know they cannot pass and then take credit for stuff they obviously could. If you looked at 2002, 2004, and now 2006...what they take credit for was never the important issue they wanted to change in the prior cycle. Nowhere are we seeing any sign of "gay marriage" in this article as an example.

However, now the base is unhappy about this and wants them to put on the agenda items they might have the votes for but could have serious consequences for them.

It's not four silos, but rather four corners of the same box. These are the issues that will be national narratives, even if candidates take their own local perspectives.

NATIONAL SECURITY:

Iraq, the War on Terror, fight em over there so we don't fight em over here. (Dem counterargument immigration reform, Katrina)

RETIREMENT SECURITY:

Estate tax repeal, pension "reforms". Bankruptcy reforms...GOP will claim best way to ensure pensions is to not allow companies to discharge them in bankruptcy and that we need more strong-arm bankruptcy laws. (Dem counterargument: Social Security lockbox, use increased deficit limits to have PBGC expand and buy more pensions out for pennies on the dollar.)

ECONOMIC SECURITY:

Repeal of the AMT, other tax repeals that are not tied to payrolls. Federal funding in energy research. (Dem counterargument: Expand medical coverage for new jobs created, which usually do not have benefits.)

ENERGY SECURITY:

Stay in Iraq (and steal the oil), drill for domestic sources, reduce federal barriers to construction of new coal/nuclear plants. Republicans always love to make government more ineffective. (Dem counterargument: ethanol and increased funding for mass transit.)

by risenmessiah on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 06:14:17 PM EST

We do need a 10 point program (none / 0)

Nancy Pelosi, Speaker

http://democracyforum.blogspot.com

by paramendra on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 10:53:31 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.