Making Republicans the Party of the Past

Last night I wrote that the Democrats -- and progressives within the party, in particular -- need to position themselves as the party of the future, echoing similar calls by people like Gary Hart, Evan Bayh, Mark Warner and others.

But positioning oneself as the party of the future is only half of the equation. At the same time, there is a requirement to show that the alternative, one's opponent, is rooted in the past, specifically a past that people would not like to see repeated.

To an extent, George W. Bush was successful in using this tactic during the 2004 election, even more so during the 2002 midterms. During these campaigns, Bush and his Republican allies attacked Democrats for having what he called a "pre-9/11 outlook" on the world. And even though the President failed to lay out much of a forward-looking vision, he was able to win by painting the Democrats as stuck in the past.

A President who used this technique for even greater effect was Harry S. Truman during the 1948 election. During a number of speeches towards the end of the campaign, Truman successfully linked Republican nominee Thomas Dewey to the previous GOP president, Herbert Hoover, in the eyes of the public. On October 27, 1948, Truman addressed a crowd in Boston and made the following remarks. (A page-by-page scan of the speech is available here with a truncated version about two-thirds of the way down the page here.)

The leaders of the Republican Party served notice on America then and there [1928] that they would stop at nothing in order to gain power.

Don't think that the elephant has changed his habits in the last 20 years. This Republican elephant is not that kind of elephant. They're trying to make you believe he has that new look, but he hasn't.

With Dewey tied to the record of Hoover in the minds of American voters, Truman was able to score a surprising victory in 1948. And although it certainly was not the only cause for his success that November, it did play a role in getting him another four years in the White House.

This all brings us to this year. I am not advocating we hammer Bush as a reincarnation of Herbert Hoover, mainly because too few Americans have first-hand memories of the days of the Hoover administration (and those that do tend to vote Democrat, anyway). Likewise, I do not suggest we remind voters that President Bush's private accounts scheme is almost exactly the same as Barry Goldwater's privatization plan from the 1964 election.

But what I do believe we must do is show voters that President Bush and the Republicans in Congress are stuck in the past. On economic issues, we tell voters that no matter what problem arises, Republicans suggest the same old 19th century laissez-faire solutions instead of offering the innovative solutions required by the 21st century we live in. On social issues, we remind voters that Republicans are rehashing the same old divisive battles of yesteryear instead of trying to solve the problems that actually afflict us today. On foreign policy issues, we explain to voters that Republicans are stuck in a Cold War mentality, and that fighting a war against Al Qaeda and its ilk requires new techniques and not the ones we used against Russia more than 20 years ago. On energy issues, we show voters that the Republicans' lust for oil -- a 19th century technology -- won't solve today's energy needs.

Given the Republicans' set of policies, it shouldn't be difficult to portray them as wanting America to move backwards instead of forwards. But in the last few election cycles we have not been able to do it. Yet if we want to win this fall, in 2008 and beyond, we must convince voters that we are the party of the future and the GOP is the party of the past.



Display:


Re: Making Republicans the Party of the Past (none / 0)

Last night I wrote that the Democrats -- and progressives within the party, in particular -- need to position themselves as the party of the future, echoing similar calls by people like Gary Hart, Evan Bayh, Mark Warner and others

While we do need to be the Party of the future, the problem is that DLC Democrats who were wrong about the past are the wrong messengers. The same reasons why the DLC backlash was successful are the reasons why the current backlash against the DLC is so potent -- reactions against what is seen as the biggest problem with DC Democrats define what the future means.

The future is inspiration (as Bowers has documented extensively). The future is courage. The future is bold action and straigh talk.

The future is tied down by the DLC, which wants to either be GOP-lite or slow progress, depending upon how you draw the axis. The future is bottom up, not top down.

Yet if we want to win this fall, in 2008 and beyond, we must convince voters that we are the party of the future and the GOP is the party of the past.

To do that, we need to get our own house in order. Joe Lieberman represents the past as the DLC posterboy. Instead of telling voters we need to break with the past, let's show them!


by Bob Brigham on Sun Jul 16, 2006 at 05:20:44 PM EST

Re: Making Republicans the Party of the Past (none / 0)

"The future is inspiration (as Bowers has documented extensively). The future is courage. The future is bold action and straigh talk"

That is an important part of it but it is also about offering solutions to the problems of this century, not the 20th Century.  It is about talking about energy independence, new and bold solutions to the dangerous world of today, the laissez faire attitude of the Repubs.  Straight talk without a compelling message will not get us anywhere.


by John Mills on Sun Jul 16, 2006 at 08:26:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Making Republicans the Party of the Past (none / 0)

In 1980- I believe it was- Reagan asked, "is it morning in america?" I think its time to ask that question again- this with the Democrats asking that question of the Republicans.


by bruh21 on Sun Jul 16, 2006 at 05:44:17 PM EST

Re: Making Republicans the Party of the Past (none / 0)

One small detail.  Harry Truman's middle name was S.  Not S as in Sam, or S as in Steward, just S.  You put a period after the S in Truman's name, as if it were an abbreviation.  Anal, I know, but just sayin'.


by cvb on Sun Jul 16, 2006 at 05:58:36 PM EST

I'm not so sure (none / 0)

It's one of life's little ironies that the more (it would say so!) conservative party in America has been the one most completely to have reinvented itself.

If there's anything left of the old party of Taft and Vandenberg, you'd have to mine deep to find it.

Whereas the connections of the Dems to the past (however counterfactual the details of the stories might be!) are more celebrated by its supporters and can be more easily traced in current attitudes and beliefs.

Poor old Dewey! Had he only not taken his victory for granted and actually campaigned as if the race mattered to him, the result could have been very different: he ran very close to Truman in CA, IL and OH, amongst others.

(Not for nothing were comparisons made between Dewey and Kerry!)

How far Dewey was effectively tagged with a Hoover connected, I'd be rather dubious. Dewey's record as NY Gov was in some respects (eg race) a good deal more liberal than Truman's, given that he didn't have a Conservative Coalition to deal with in Albany. (That 80th Congress certainly didn't do him any favors, though.)

(I wonder what Hoover's name recognition is like these days. How, for instance, does it match up with the Dem House leadership trio from the pulled DCCC ad?)

Besides, I'm not sure that some of the points you make really ring true.

For example, I don't think the current incarnation of the GOP has ever favored laisser-faire; there's far too much invested in corporate welfare by far too many of their client corporations for that. Corporations which have come to love big government for its inexhaustible supply of gravy!

(Of course, for years, the GOP have said they're for smaller government, but that's clearly a cognitive dissonance that Joe Sixpack has been happy to embrace - as they've seen the deficit has balloon each year under Bush Jr.)

And I'm not sure whether it's right to characterize GOP foreign policy as stuck in a Cold War mindset; seems to me that the problem has come with the end of the Cold War superpower standoff which has freed up US governments - notably, the current one! - to embrace military aggression as a regular policy tool without fear of extreme retaliation    .

A key problem with an appeal to the past (ie, fixing the GOP as representing it) may be that voters sense of the past is less keen than their parents' or grandparents'. The migrant's journey, the Depression, the War - all of these crises are moving out of living memory for Americans.

And another slight problem may be the delight that Dems take in revisiting their glory days (necessarily in the past - for the moment!). Distinguishing the good past (the New Deal, say) from the bad past (whatever the GOP are being accused of embracing) may be a tough sell.


by skeptic06 on Sun Jul 16, 2006 at 06:03:08 PM EST

Re: I'm not so sure (3.00 / 1)

anyone who wants to see how hard times were needs to go to the tenements of lower east manhattan where peo were stack in 10 to 20 to an apartment when they immigrated to this country. I really dont think most people understand this history.


by bruh21 on Sun Jul 16, 2006 at 08:04:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Making Republicans the Party of the Past (none / 0)

Another excellent post.  Gary Hart was always a guy who thought outside the box which upset the party establishment and some on the left.  It is one of the reasons I always liked him.  

I am a big believer in experimentation.  Both the New Deal and the Great Society were built on it.  There were some bad ideas from those eras that didn't survive but the important programs did.  I believe the Dems need to get that creativity back.  I am heartened that some of our candidates for President are starting to talk in those terms.


by John Mills on Sun Jul 16, 2006 at 06:56:50 PM EST

Re: Making Republicans the Party of the Past (none / 0)

A great post, and on target.
The best antidote to a Fascist regime in Washington has always been a program for the future. That's just the way America is--that ingrained belief that we can have a better future (Huck Finn lighting out for the Frontier), especially since that belief is more and more not available under the ChristoFascist Republicans, as many posters have noted.
Give regular people a solidly based hope for their futures, and they'll rally 'round.
Abigail, I'm sure if there is something out there looking down on us from somewhere else in the Universe, they're wise enough to stay away from us. --Grissom
by traveler on Sun Jul 16, 2006 at 07:04:34 PM EST

"Are You Better Off Today?" . . . (3.00 / 1)

& the Narrative Arc

"Are You Better Off Today?" is a potent argument for Democrats -- it ties in with "Had Enough?"

But by itself, it's not enough -- it needs a compelling Narrative Arc that can overcome decades of GOP smears.

Making Progressive Democrats the Party of the future requires an Overarching Narrative that is both compelling and credible. Given the fact that the Democratic Establishment has totally surrendered over the past 25 years, and allowed the GOP to trash Brand Democrat, this is a tough challenge -- but not impossible.

We need to develop soundbites that capture the essence of what the Democratic Party offers, and we need to start with what the Democrats have given this country in the past.

Our primary objective is reclaiming Brand Democrat.

I've been working on some diary posts, based on the theme:

What Do Democrats Stand For?

This is multifaceted question, but on the most basic level the goal is to develop narratives and soundbites that any field worker or candidate can use to answer the question.

The GOP response is "Lower Taxes, Less Government, More Freedom" -- which has been replaced by "Bush Daddy will keep us safe." They are all lies, but that doesn't keep them from being deeply ingrained in the American Psyche.

In response to the question, What Do Democrats Stand For? -- the following ideas have some resonance:

Hope and Opportunity. Government that is Fair, Honest, and Real.

These descriptive words can be used in conjunction with a variety of subjects, and they are a direct counterpoint to the Republican lies.

Anyway -- that's a big project, and deserves a more thoughtful treatment.

btw -- the Bush 2004 campaign centered on Trustworthiness, as opposed to John Kerry's flip flopping duplicity. The Bush 2000 campaign had a brilliant forward thinking progressive narrative arc:

Compassionate Conservative.

All of their other themes supported this overarching narrative, and even though it was a lie, they conned enough people to steal the election.


by ck on Sun Jul 16, 2006 at 07:18:23 PM EST

Re: "Are You Better Off Today?" . . . (none / 0)

Absolutely right.  In the dot-com era, it was called an elevator story - ie something that could be described in an elevator ride.  I have seen a couple of attempts at it both here and at DaliyKos but we need to develop one.  Whether or not you like it, people respond to soundbites and easy to understand messages.


by John Mills on Sun Jul 16, 2006 at 08:32:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

We're fucking doomed (3.00 / 1)

Shoot me now and get it the hell over with if Mark Warner and Evan Bayh and Gary Hart are the future.  Sure as hell isn't a future I want anything to do with.

You can't win with milqtoast candidates and party loyalists alone.  Not by a long shot.


You're nobody...until you've been banned at dkos because you had an original thought or spoke truth to power.
by NorCalJim on Sun Jul 16, 2006 at 07:28:35 PM EST

Re: Making Republicans the Party of the Past (none / 0)

I agree: "fighting a war against Al Qaeda and its ilk requires new techniques".  I think that saying this isn't enough.  Democrats should emphasize:

1. How large-scale military efforts are not only not the right way, they are actually hurting our cause by generating more insurgency.

2. How Islamic insurgents are winning the PR war -- and PR was invented in the US!  We should appeal to US values in our combat strategies and tactics wherever the battleground is hearts and minds.  We want to talk about the freedom of the individual and the power of families.  For example, imagine if we papered Afghanistan with a poster showing kids flying kits, and all the kites lifting up the nation.  The Taliban banned kites, and would do it again.

3. How a law enforcement and intelligence approach would be more successful AND would attract more allies, in the Islamic world and elsewhere.  Be specific, and creative.  Look what creativity has done for Israeli counter-terrorism (no matter what you think of the justice of their positions).

4. Remind voters that this threat is NOTHING compared to Hitler and the Soviets.  Absolutely NOTHING.  Reactionary Goopers are cowards -- they're willing to give up every guarantee of freedom in order to feel a little bit less fearful.  Democrats should stand up in the public arena and accept the challenge of Islamic extremism.  We in the "West" have everything on our side -- every quantifiable metric is to our advantage.  All we need is confidence and a strategy that addresses the rest of the world.

5. Democrats should hammer on energy independence like there's nothing else to talk about.  "Make the Middle East irrelevant" is a crude slogan, but people are paying attention to the energy situation, and if we Dems don't push Bush/Cheney, big oil, and the sleazy Saudis into one despicable cartoon, we don't deserve to win.  Energy independence has it all, and Bush's record is worthless.  With energy independence, how much fighting do you think we'll have to do?


by miriamsong on Sun Jul 16, 2006 at 07:51:55 PM EST

They already are (none / 0)

The Republicans already are the party of the past; they have been all about the past since Reagan.

The problem is that the American people, as a group, have been a people of the past and the past that holds their attention, the one they use to measure good and bad, is an imagined past.


by James Earl on Sun Jul 16, 2006 at 07:59:06 PM EST

Re: Making Republicans the Party of the Past (none / 0)

One thing I've noticed about Dems is they fail miserably at labeling the Repubs.  We should never hear "President" out of any Democrats mouth, it should always be "unpopular President."  We should never "Republican Party," we should always hear "failed Republican administration."  These phrases should be repeated ad nauseum.

Dems seem to arrive at strategies all the time, they just never carry them out, even the nitty bitty details.


by tomanjeri on Sun Jul 16, 2006 at 08:08:31 PM EST

Re: Making Republicans the Party of the Past (none / 0)

Here's the plot.

We've been living with Nixonian political assumptions (or leaning against them) for nearly 40 years. http://www.danablankenhorn.com/2006/06/c hanging_times.html

They don't work anymore. Neither, in fact, does the anti-thesis to Nixon, which Clinton represents. http://www.danablankenhorn.com/2006/07/t he_antithesis_.html

What we need is a new Thesis http://www.danablankenhorn.com/2006/06/a _review_of_ter.html, a myth that addresses the problems of our times, and leads toward solutions.

You have been creating such a myth right here at MyDD for several years. I've labeled it the Open Source Myth http://www.danablankenhorn.com/2006/06/t he_open_source.html It's based on the values of the Internet -- consensus, connectivity, transparency.

And it answers the questions of the day directly, by stating, simply, that they don't really matter.http://www.danablankenhorn.com/2006/07/o ne_word_on_the.html


by Dana Blankenhorn on Sun Jul 16, 2006 at 09:31:44 PM EST

Re: Making Republicans the Party of the Past (none / 0)

I forget which blog I pulled this from, but READ THIS ARTICLE.

One thing we need to do is to control the narrative, and one powerful narrative the GOP uses is to claim they were stabbed in the back.  Stabbed in the back by the media, judges, the government, liberals, and war protesters (the ultimate back stabbers who lost Vietnam).

We need to nullify this narrative, or better yet co-opt it.

Here is one I like:
We are losing Iraq because of the profiteers, and the money grubbing parasites.  The GOP has stabbed this country in the back.  As a matter of fact they backstab REAL Americans of all stripes.

Words to describe the backstabbers:
limp wristed, venal, parasites, two faced, etc.

and my favorites:
traitor - they sold out our troops, the elderly, the young, students, women, men, blacks, whites for money, they don't give a damn about anyone except themselves, the are petty, greedy bastards.  Those bastards stabbed this country in the back and you can never trust a backstabber.


Enough already...
by pjv on Mon Jul 17, 2006 at 01:44:11 AM EST

Re: Making Republicans the Party of the Past (none / 0)

"On energy issues, we show voters that the Republicans' lust for oil -- a 19th century technology -- won't solve today's energy needs."

Because the windmill is so cutting-edge.


by Gpack3 on Mon Jul 17, 2006 at 03:32:12 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.