Nancy Pelosi isn't doing a good job as minority leader. I've written about this here, here, here, here, here, and here. She's actively hostile to the netroots, which I find baffling. She doesn't stand up for her fellow members when they are fighting the Republicans. She creates incentives against aggressive behavior. She enforces an ethics truce, and lies about it. Despite all of this, she can still come around and be a good leader. And if she doesn't come around and start leading, it could cost us 2006.
First, let's speak politics. It's clear that the Republicans have a turnout advantage, and especially in a base election like 2004, the middle does not vote. Even in 2004, which was not a base election, only 4.7% of voters switched their choice of candidate. 2006 will be an election where getting out the base is decisive. Now, I know the polls say that Republicans are demoralized. But this is a temporary phenomenon. The Republican operatives are reading the same damned polls and are making plans to fire up their base. And unlike us, they don't have much trust to regain, because they have largely satisfied their base over the past five years. At the end of the day, Republicans bitch and bitch and bitch about their leadership and then they. turn. out. That's the GOP model. They will be organized, they will be effective, they will be targeted. We simply cannot afford to assume this will fall into our laps by ignoring the very real demoralization within our own base.
Read this analysis of 2004, from Chris Bowers. Lots of good stuff in there, but the key takeaway is as follows:
As fewer and fewer people even consider switching to the opposition, much less actually changing their minds, Republican turnout is increasing and Democratic turnout is static. Further, Republicans love their leadership while Democrats only like theirs.
If this leadership gap continues, the GOP will happily make this election about the Democrats, like they did in 2002. The base is already demoralized, and like in TX-28, may just sit on its hands. What's the point of switching over if all you get is mealy mouthed stubborn camp counselors as leadership?
Jane Hamsher writes about it,, as does Digby and John Aravosis. Now I know the temptation is to dismiss what we say because we are thirteen year old children or something. Even though Jane was a successful Hollywood producer. And Aravosis was a lawyer, a journalist for the Economist, and a Senate staffer. And I have worked in real live winning campaigns and managed multi-million dollar software projects. These are mean feats for thirteen year olds.
Or maybe we're being confusing us with single issue groups who are asking for politicians to check our specific box or else we're going to go away. That's certainly how the media wants to portray us, as part of the 'liberal base' next to the corrupt and bitchy enviro groups. But that's not who we are. We are the silent majority in this country, the people who are asking you to lead us in another direction. It doesn't even matter which direction, just as long as it's different and it's principled. That's all. Represent us, or represent something other than knuckling under to a staid conventional wisdom.
Or else in November, 2006, we're going to be incoherently angry again and Eleanor Clift will be tut-tuttting the liberal extremists, and all the while America will be dying.
|
|
|
Permalink :: 47 Comments :: Post a Comment
|
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.
