washington, dc

The Democratic Strategist

Political Strategy for a Permanent Democratic Majority

Month: April 2009

Tea Parties Draw Quarter Million

Nate Silver at 538.com has made a noble effort to compile estimates of crowd sizes for “tea party” events yesterday, and has come up with an aggregate total of around 250,000 folks at 306 sites. The sheer number of events is probably more impressive than total attendance, which, after all, fell far short of attendance at pro-immigration-reform protests in 2006.
As for impressionistic coverage of the events, there’s lots of amusing-to-horrifying reportage at savetherich.com. Byron York of the Washington Examiner has one of the best-written sympathetic accounts, based on what he saw and heard in Winchester, VA.


The “Movement” Roots of Obama’s Political Strategy — Martin Luther King’s campaigns in Birmingham and Chicago and the congressional campaigns of King’s Top Aide Andrew Young. By Andrew Levison

Obama’s ambitious budget has profoundly reassured many Democrats that he is indeed the progressive he appeared to be during the 2008 campaign. But there is still widespread concern about his continued desire to achieve some degree of “bipartisanship.”
Read the entire memo here.


Bipartisanship and Successful Polarization By Ed Kilgore

The word of the week in the chattering classes seems to be “polarization.” Based largely on a new Pew Research poll showing the gap between Barack Obama’s approval ratings among Rs and Ds being higher than those of six previous presidents at the same point in their tenures, conservative observers, and some progressives, are happily burying “bipartisanship” as a strategy associated with the administration.
Read the entire memo here.


The “Movement” Roots of Obama’s Political Strategy — Martin Luther King’s campaigns in Birmingham and Chicago and the congressional campaigns of King’s Top Aide Andrew Young.

Print Version
Editor’s Note: this TDS Strategy Memo, written by Andrew Levison, provides a unique historical perspective on President Obama’s much-debated strategy for promoting a progressive agenda in Washington, drawing on the lessons of the civil rights movement.
Obama’s ambitious budget has profoundly reassured many Democrats that he is indeed the progressive he appeared to be during the 2008 campaign. But there is still widespread concern about his continued desire to achieve some degree of “bipartisanship.”
For many progressives, Barack Obama’s notion of “bipartisanship” reflects a political strategy rooted in a timid, overly weak and compliant variety of 1990’s centrism — a political strategy that the Democratic Party finally rejected after the 2004 election, leading to the gains in the elections of 2006 and 2008. In this view, Obama’s attempts to negotiate with congressional Republicans over his stimulus and budget programs and his continuing expressions of a desire to win the support of moderate Republican legislators for his health and energy plans represent a serious threat to compromise and dilute the progressive vision reflected in his budget.
The progressive alternative to Obama’s strategy that this critical view suggests seems obvious: a much more consistently combative, fiercely partisan and unyieldingly progressive approach, one that seeks to maximize Democratic victories and reject any unnecessary compromise. As Digby, for example argued: “Only in the beltway bubble is there some expectation that everyone is going to agree. The rest of us would prefer that our politicians stand up for what they believe in and try to do what they promised”.
This approach was developed and championed by the Democratic grassroots and netroots during the Bush years and it is also often suggested that it is also the modern version of the political strategy that underlay the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960’s.
The Civil Rights Movement was indeed militant and confrontational in many of its tactics such as sit-ins, freedom rides and street demonstrations. But, in the particular approach developed and employed by Martin Luther King and SCLC, the broader, long-term strategy the movement followed was actually a good deal more complex. In fact, Obama’s seemingly unique political strategy did not appear out of thin air in 2008. Its roots actually lie in one particular perspective that emerged out of the civil rights movement and that drew heavily upon the lessons the movement learned during the Birmingham and Chicago campaigns.
Before proceeding, it is necessary to emphasize one key fact. Recognizing that Obama’s political strategy has its roots in strategies developed by King and SCLC does not imply that progressives and the progressive movement today are obliged to support and employ the same approach Obama chooses for his Presidential political strategy. Quite the contrary, Martin Luther King’s strategy in relation to both John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson suggests precisely the opposite – – that King felt he and the movement had to always maintain a separate and explicitly progressive political role and identity, in contrast to even a relatively liberal President who King understood would often have to make compromises and respond to other political imperatives. But what this interpretation of Obama’s strategy does require is a substantial revision of the notion that Obama’s approach can be dismissed as simply a warmed-over version of 1990’s centrism.


Tea Parties: Kaboom or Bust?

One of the under-appreciated aspects of the “tea parties” we’ll hearing about today is the dance of indecision among Republican officeholders about how closely to identify with this phenomenon. Sure, it’s tempting to snuggle up to a populist-sounding “movement”–however artificial and “astroturfed” it actually is–that’s in rough accord with the GOP’s simplistic anti-tax and anti-spending rhetoric. But aside from the possibility that the “tea parties” will be a bust in terms of attendance, there’s the unfocused, and generally anti-incumbent, atmosphere of the events, and lots of sheer craziness.
Even if those concerns are overcome, there’s the legitimate fear among Republicans that the tea parties will offend the big majority of Americans who are a bit more worried about the economic crisis than about the horrible injustice of boosting the top marginal income tax rate to where it was eight years ago. One of the larger mistakes made by the Republican Party in recent years was the decision to align itself with the hard-core Cultural Right in the Terry Schiavo saga, a decision that clearly repelled millions of people. The tea parties have the potential of becoming another such moment.
In any event, Ben Smith of Politico has a rundown of where some of the leading Republican pols will be today. Lots of them have apparently found something to do other than joining their local anti-tax shriekathons.


Political Tests For Religion

The publication of a long, interesting, if somewhat meandering Newsweek cover piece by John Meachem entitled “The End of Christian America” has spurred a brief resurgence of blogospheric debate on the whole church-state separation issue.
Much of the debate has been stimulated by Damon Linker at The New Republic, who has simultaneously argued against the “Christian Nation” concept, while also suggesting that a watered-down version of Christianity known as “Moralistic Therapeutic Deism” (MTD) might serve quite well as a “civic religion.”
Much of the blowback Linker has generated comes from this second assertion, which offers a pretty easy target insofar as Damon himself describes MTD as a theological abomination. Rod Dreher waxes indignant about the patent emptiness of MTD as a source for prophetic political action such as the civil rights movement. Ross Douthat more broadly asserts that the kind of thinking behind MTD is more dangerous than anything promoted by the Christian Right:

[Y]ou don’t have to look terribly hard to see a connection between the kind of self-centered, sentimental, and panglossian religion described above and the spirit of unwarranted optimism and metaphysical self-regard that animated some of Bush’s worst hours as President (his second inaugural address could have been subtitled: “Moral Therapeutic Deism Goes to War”) and some of his fellow Americans’ worst hours as homeowners and investors. In the wake of two consecutive bubble economies, it takes an inordinate fear of culture war, I think, to immerse yourself in the literature of Oprahfied religion – from nominal Christians like Joel Osteen to New Age gurus like Eckhart Tolle and Rhonda Byrne – and come away convinced that this theological turn has been “salutary” for the country overall.

I’m mentioning this discussion here because church-state separation issues tend to divide not only progressives from conservatives, and believers from seculars, but even progressive believers from each other. Damon notes my own “Augustinian dualist” position in the post above, which can be roughly described as staunch support for strict church-state separation on both civic and religious grounds. So count me as someone who agrees with Damon Linker on the threat to American liberties and traditions posed by the Christian Right (and for that matter, the Christian Left if it ever became really popular), but who also doesn’t like the religious or political implications of some Christian Lite “civic religion” like Moralistic Therapeutic Deism. I don’t think America really needs a “civic religion;” we should be able to get by as a secular republic characterized by religious (and irreligious) diversity, thank you very much.
So that puts me in the camp, for once, of the polymath Michael Lind, whose own essay for Salon on the latest Christian Nation debate flatly denies that religion, rigorous or Lite, is necessary for democracy, even though some (if not all) of the Founders felt that it was:

In [George] Washington’s day, it may have been reasonable for the elite to worry that only fear of hellfire kept the masses from running amok, but in the 21st century it is clear that democracy as a form of government does not require citizens who believe in supernatural religion. Most of the world’s stable democracies are in Europe, where the population is largely post-Christian and secular, and in East Asian countries like Japan where the “Judeo-Christian tradition” has never been part of the majority culture.

But as Lind points out, strict church-state separation not only protects secular society from religious abuses, but also protects religion from manipulation for political reasons:

The idea that religion is important because it educates democratic citizens in morality is actually quite demeaning to religion. It imposes a political test on religion, as it were — religions are not true or false, but merely useful or dangerous, when it comes to encouraging the civic virtues that are desirable in citizens of a constitutional, democratic republic.

So gimme that old-time “wall” between church and state, beloved of the Southern Baptists of my childhood. America’s religious and civic cultures are truly in crisis if they can’t do without it.


AstroTea Central

Tomorrow we’ll be hearing lots about the so-called “tea parties” being held in conjunction with tax day. If you follow the festivities on Fox, you’ll be under the impression that the “tea party movement” is a vast grassroots phenomenon on the brink of halting socialism in its tracks and turning governance of the country back over to its rightful, rightwing owners.
In reality, of course, the tea parties aren’t in the least spontaneous, and have been organized, financed and promoted by the usual suspects of hard-core conservatism. That’s why the best place to follow the tea parties is at a new site, www.savetherich.com, devoted to exposing the “astroturf” (i.e., fake grassroots) nature of these events.
Here’s some pertinent info from the site’s “open letter to media”:

The evidence of astroturfing is everywhere:
Corporate lobbyists and their consultants are organizing behind the scenes. Many of the events are being run by staff from think tanks like Americans for Prosperity, Freedom Works and American Solutions for Winning the Futures (ASWF) an organization run by former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich.
Fox News is encouraging turnout, sponsoring, and covering “Tea Parties” across the country. They’re coordinating much of the information for organizers on-line. Fox News hosts — Beck, Cavuto, Hannity, Bruce, Van Susteren, Malkin and Gingrich — are featured guests at some of the largest gatherings.
Protesters have no idea what they’re talking about. At Tea Parties that have taken place over the last few days, attendees are more concerned with Obama’s birth certificate than high taxes or government spending. Fringe gun groups, secessionists, anti-immigration activists and neo-Nazis are out in force.
Republican officials are driving turn out. Sen. David Vitter is even sponsoring a bill to honor the protests. At least 12 Republican members of Congress will be featured guests at the Tea Parties. 11 of the 12 Members of Congress attending the events voted against limiting excessive bonuses just two weeks ago.

So buckle in for a day of rage, much of it manufactured.


Zany Conservatives Roundup

Seems it’s a good day for some of the odder variety of conservative activists; here are a couple of examples:
In Iowa, it seems (via Steve Benen) that conservatives need a good refresher course in constitutional law, as reflected in the themes of a major rally held In reaction to the recent Iowa Supreme Court ruling striking down the state’s same-sex marriage ban. Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob Vander Plaats sez he’ll issue an executive order overriding the court’s opinion until such time as Iowans get to vote on the issue. Informed that the governor has no such power, Vander Plaats said he’d exercise it anyway, since after all: “Who says the courts get the final say?” Er, well, maybe the Iowa constitution? Maybe Marbury v. Madison?
At the same rally, a bird named Bill Salier, the founder of a right-wing group called Everyday America, and former Iowa chairman for Tom Tancredo’s presidential campaign, suggested that the state’s gay marriage ban remained in effect because it was physically still in the statute books. “Unless some magic eraser came down from the sky, it’s still in the code.” Interesting.
Meanwhile, over in the nation’s capital, anti-abortion activists are having catalyptic fits over Georgetown University’s entirely routine decision to let the President of the United States speak on its campus today. Veteran abortion extremist Randall Terry is leading a protest against Obama’s appearance, and is making unusually explicit reference to the US-Nazi Germany parallels that most Christian Right leaders only hint at:

Georgetown’s attitude seems to be: Germany’s leaders built great roads in the 1930s, they helped save the banks, and they rebuilt the economy. Let’s focus on their economy – not that whole genocide thing.

Here’s guessing that Terry and the other protesters will go particularly wild when (as Tim Fernholz tips us off) Obama talks about the Sermon on the Mount as a model for economic policy in his Georgetown address.


Westen: Dems Need Better ‘Branding’

Drew Westen’s HuffPo column, “Why the Democrats Are Losing Ground As Obama Is Gaining It” should generate some concern in Democratic Party circles. Westen, author of The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation, cites recent Rasmussen polls, which indicate a worrisome trend for Dems:

As the latest Rasmussen polls show, in March the percent of voters who consider themselves Democrats dropped by 2 percent–four times the rate of decline among Republicans (even as the Republicans were publicly flailing, producing numberless budgets, and unwittingly branding themselves as the party of old ideas and the party of “no”). More ominous, the margin of voters supporting a Democrat over a Republican in a generic ballot for Congress dropped to its lowest point since both the Iraq War and the economy had clearly gone south by 2006: one percent (40 vs. 39%).

Westen attributes the decline in Democratic self-i.d. to a failure of political ‘branding’:

But the best products fail without good branding. In politics, you don’t win on ideas alone…Successful branding requires two things: creating positive associations to your own brand, and differentiating it from competing brands. In politics, that means offering voters a clear, memorable, emotionally compelling narrative about your party’s core principles, while presenting them with an equally clear, memorable, and evocative story about the other party that would not make anyone want to be associated with it. If there were ever a time Democrats could offer both stories, this is it.

While Westen’s premise would be more convincing if there were another poll or two indicating similar results, his corrective prescription makes a lot of sense, regardless. He points out that “repetition is essential psychologically, neurologically, and empirically to branding,” and FDR provided a useful template for Democratic presidents:

Roosevelt’s consistent branding of the Republicans as inflexible ideologues at the same time as he showed what progressive, pragmatic action and Democratic leadership could offer led to a political realignment that lasted 40 years.

Westen acknowledges that this has not been President Obama’s ‘style’ — the President prefers to criticize negative values like greed, rather than people, and it’s hard to argue with his success thus far. However, Westen believes that it’s critical for Dems to provide a credible voice to do the needed branding:

But someone needs to be in the fray other than the GOP. The worst thing to be in politics is silent, because it allows the other side to shape public sentiment uncontested. It wouldn’t hurt to have a Southern voice like Tim Kaine’s behind a megaphone with a “D” written on it. But whether it’s Kaine or someone else with credibility and charisma, somebody needs to start saying what Democrats and Republicans stand for other than Newt Gingrich, John Boehner, and Richard Shelby. That’s a lesson we should have learned a long time ago…In politics, there is nothing so deadly as silence.

Right now it’s hard to identify anyone south of the presidency who has the megaphone to make it stick. Westen’s point about the need for more of a ‘southern voice,’ including Governor Kaine, is well taken. Former Presidents Clinton and Carter are busy being statesmen, but it would be helpful if they joined the fray from time to time. Perhaps it’s time for Dems to organize a southern ‘echo chamber’ composed of southern governors, senators and house members in a concerted branding project.
On the positive side, the progressive blogosphere has made an excellent contribution towards branding the Republicans as the party that ran America into “the ditch…by the side of the road” Westen refers to, and some of it (not enough) has reverbed into the traditional media. But the blogosphere can’t do it all. The Democratic Party will now have to step up and lead the way in more clearly defining itself as the Party of solutions and progress.


Obama-Ordered Rescue Confounds GOP Echo Chamber

Do check out David Waldman’s Daily Kos post, “GOP descends further into sick cynicism,” a body slam really, of the right-wing blowhards (in an excellent video montage) who were trying to nail twisted versions of the GOP’s traditional “weak sister” meme on Obama for his handling of the pirate attacks. Problem was, they were all taped at about the time that Navy Seals were engaged in a heroic rescue of Captain Phillips — on orders from President Obama. Should be fun watching the Republican mouthpieces equivocate their way around their comments in the days ahead. Here’s one of the juicier quotes from Waldman’s post:

While all of these pampered fops were sitting, doughy asses-in-chair and having their pusses painted up in TeeVee make-up, so that they could come on the air and go all in against America, actual heroes were at that very moment doing the real dirty work of executing that rescue.

In terms of political strategy, the rescue should give Obama some cred as a decisive commander-in-chief, who is clearly prepared to order a genuinely needed military operation, even though he didn’t don a flight suit and “prance around on the deck of an aircraft carrier,” as General Wes Clark once described the theatrics of his predecessor.