Maneuvering Yourself Out of Existence
What will it mean if the Democrats win the mid-term election decisively enough to take back the House and the Senate? According to Paul Glastris, editor-in-chief of the Washington Monthly, everything turns on this question. If the Dems fail to take back the House, then each party will take the wrong message from the election. According to Glastris,
"Egged on by their “friends” in the mainstream media, Democrats may come to believe that their mistake was one of message: They didn’t offer up enough bold ideas, an alternative vision to contrast with the Republicans’."
Glastris gives no evidence for why this will be the lesson the Dems take from a defeat - it certainly wasn't the lesson they learned from the 2000, 2002, or 2004 elections. In fact, the striking thing about this campaign is that they have stuck with the 'Anybody But Bush' platform they used to no effect in the previous two elections.
Glastris goes on to argue that the wrong lesson for the Republicans is that they will see even the slimmest majority as a mandate, and will try to use their power to pursue an ideological, rather than compromise, agenda. They will fail to realize their own inner corruption, their inability to convince a majority of Americans, and that one can't rule as a majority party with only a plurality of the vote. Perhaps.
Glastris' larger point is that the mid-terms are, first and foremost, a referendum on the party in power. And the reporting on most papers seems to agree. Republican weakness appears to be entirely a problem of their own making. Corruption scandals, stalled legislative agendas, but most significantly, the stalled occupation of Iraq, has meant the Republicans have been hoisted by their own morals-and-security petard. The New York Times reports Rahm Emmanuel, the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, saying that "an even greater focus on the war in Iraq...[has turned] what was once the Republicans greatest strength into a major liability," ie, security.
This 'greater focus on the war' is partly the Democrats' own doing. As Glastris notes, having fielded a number of veterans, the 'Fighting Dems', and having pushed the 'Bush has failed us on security, and everything else' line, the Democrats have made their best effort to make no independent impression on the electorate. This is exactly how Glastris, and the majority of Democratic campaign strategists, would have it.
But Glastris et al. miss two fundamental things about party politics. The first is that, there is a limit to which one can simply win by allowing a party to self-destruct. Appropriating the language of security and morality, and turning it against the Republicans, might highlight just how severely the Republican party has decayed over the past half-decade. However, it does nothing to guarantee that once Republican voters will now vote Democrat. It only decreases the Republican vote. It is more likely to produce apathy, not a decisive shift in public opinion. This certainly seems to be the subtext of the mid-term coverage: Republican losses are not necessarily Democratic gains.
The problem with attacking the Republican Party with a kinder gentler version of Republican ideas isn't just strategic. Indeed, the second problem is that the Democrats may very well win, but at the cost of having maneuvered themselves out of existence. Having tailored their message so carefully over the past series of election cycles to necessities of winning, the Dems seem to have forgotten the point of party politics in the first place. Parties don't exist just to win power. They exist to win power so they can use it to certain ends. What are the ends of the Democratic Party? There might be some distinctive legislative proposals, but if they win an election on the basis of security and morals, and then try to change the subject once in power, they will reveal their own lack of mandate. To pursue an independent agenda, one must convince others of the legitimacy of that agenda, otherwise, a combination of disagreement and disinterest will undermine any ability to pursue that agenda.
In other words, the Democrats, like the Republicans, have concentrated so much energy on winning that they have forgotten what the point of winning is. Winning has become an end in itself. In other words, Glastris is wrong that who wins determines whether each party will take the right or wrong message from this election. Regardless of who wins, each side is likely to take the wrong message from the mid-term, because neither side wants us to think very seriously about the principles at stake. They prefer to dabble in fear and personal ethics and to play electoral Stratego.
"Egged on by their “friends” in the mainstream media, Democrats may come to believe that their mistake was one of message: They didn’t offer up enough bold ideas, an alternative vision to contrast with the Republicans’."
Glastris gives no evidence for why this will be the lesson the Dems take from a defeat - it certainly wasn't the lesson they learned from the 2000, 2002, or 2004 elections. In fact, the striking thing about this campaign is that they have stuck with the 'Anybody But Bush' platform they used to no effect in the previous two elections.
Glastris goes on to argue that the wrong lesson for the Republicans is that they will see even the slimmest majority as a mandate, and will try to use their power to pursue an ideological, rather than compromise, agenda. They will fail to realize their own inner corruption, their inability to convince a majority of Americans, and that one can't rule as a majority party with only a plurality of the vote. Perhaps.
Glastris' larger point is that the mid-terms are, first and foremost, a referendum on the party in power. And the reporting on most papers seems to agree. Republican weakness appears to be entirely a problem of their own making. Corruption scandals, stalled legislative agendas, but most significantly, the stalled occupation of Iraq, has meant the Republicans have been hoisted by their own morals-and-security petard. The New York Times reports Rahm Emmanuel, the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, saying that "an even greater focus on the war in Iraq...[has turned] what was once the Republicans greatest strength into a major liability," ie, security.
This 'greater focus on the war' is partly the Democrats' own doing. As Glastris notes, having fielded a number of veterans, the 'Fighting Dems', and having pushed the 'Bush has failed us on security, and everything else' line, the Democrats have made their best effort to make no independent impression on the electorate. This is exactly how Glastris, and the majority of Democratic campaign strategists, would have it.
But Glastris et al. miss two fundamental things about party politics. The first is that, there is a limit to which one can simply win by allowing a party to self-destruct. Appropriating the language of security and morality, and turning it against the Republicans, might highlight just how severely the Republican party has decayed over the past half-decade. However, it does nothing to guarantee that once Republican voters will now vote Democrat. It only decreases the Republican vote. It is more likely to produce apathy, not a decisive shift in public opinion. This certainly seems to be the subtext of the mid-term coverage: Republican losses are not necessarily Democratic gains.
The problem with attacking the Republican Party with a kinder gentler version of Republican ideas isn't just strategic. Indeed, the second problem is that the Democrats may very well win, but at the cost of having maneuvered themselves out of existence. Having tailored their message so carefully over the past series of election cycles to necessities of winning, the Dems seem to have forgotten the point of party politics in the first place. Parties don't exist just to win power. They exist to win power so they can use it to certain ends. What are the ends of the Democratic Party? There might be some distinctive legislative proposals, but if they win an election on the basis of security and morals, and then try to change the subject once in power, they will reveal their own lack of mandate. To pursue an independent agenda, one must convince others of the legitimacy of that agenda, otherwise, a combination of disagreement and disinterest will undermine any ability to pursue that agenda.
In other words, the Democrats, like the Republicans, have concentrated so much energy on winning that they have forgotten what the point of winning is. Winning has become an end in itself. In other words, Glastris is wrong that who wins determines whether each party will take the right or wrong message from this election. Regardless of who wins, each side is likely to take the wrong message from the mid-term, because neither side wants us to think very seriously about the principles at stake. They prefer to dabble in fear and personal ethics and to play electoral Stratego.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home