washington, dc

The Democratic Strategist

Political Strategy for a Permanent Democratic Majority

Month: October 2009

Democrats — Don’t be misled. The media is going to call Obama’s new Afghan strategy a “betrayal” of the Democratic base — but it’s not. It’s actually a decisive rejection of the Republican/Neo-Conservative strategy of the “Long War” By James Vega

When Obama presents his new strategy for Afghanistan in the next few days it is inevitable that many in the press will describe it as a profound betrayal of the Democratic “base”. Obama will face fierce criticism from many progressive and anti-war Democrats who will consider his decision to significantly increase the number of troops as representing a complete capitulation to the military and Republican neoconservatives.
This reaction is understandable, but it is actually profoundly wrong.
Read the entire memo here.


Military Strategy for Democrats: The key issue in Afghanistan isn’t the number of troops we send, it’s the mission that they’re given — and that’s why the military doctrine and strategy of “counterinsurgency” is totally inadequate as a guide.

By James Vega
The real decision America must face in regard to Afghanistan is not the precise number of troops that should be sent but rather the mission they are given to perform.
Read the entire memo here.


Military Strategy for Democrats: The key issue in Afghanistan isn’t the number of troops we send, it’s the mission that they’re given – and that’s why the military doctrine and strategy of “counterinsurgency” is totally inadequate as a guide

(this is the first of a two part analysis. A print (PDF) version of the entire memo is available here)
The real decision America must face in regard to Afghanistan is not the precise number of troops that should be sent but rather the mission they are given to perform.
Last January, when Obama took office, there was a broad national consensus on this subject. On the one hand, there was universal agreement that US forces should prevent Al Qaeda from ever again using Afghanistan as a base for training camps or other terrorist facilities. Quite the contrary, there was wide approval of the goal of completely dismantling and destroying Al Qaeda as an organization.
Although it was not always explicitly stated, it was quite obvious that this would require preventing the Taliban from taking control of (1) the capital city of Kabul and several other major urban areas and (2) a number of key infrastructure installations like major airports, electric power stations and national highways. The commitment to destroy Al Qaeda also clearly implied the need to establish and maintain a certain number of observation posts, forward operating bases and other “in country” forces adequate to provide intelligence about terrorist activity in various regions of the country. Most Americans were entirely in agreement with this approach.
On the other hand, there was absolutely no support for the ambitious “nation building” and cultural reprogramming of the kind the Bush-Cheney administration tried in Iraq– a vast investment of soldiers, funds and resources aimed at transforming Iraq into a pro-American, free market utopia. Most Americans were not willing to sacrifice more American lives or resources in this ideological neo-conservative crusade.
Public opinion on these issues has not changed greatly since January and behind all the complex maneuvering of the last several weeks the view described above still appears to be Obama’s view as well. There are difficult practical decisions about the proper number of troops that are needed to execute this strategy but the issue has become additionally and deeply confused in recent weeks because the influential military doctrine called “counterinsurgency” suggests a fundamentally different mission and strategy from the one described above. The current version of this doctrine is embodied in FM-3-24 – the US Army/Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manual.
The term “Counterinsurgency” – often abbreviated as COIN — has had phenomenally good press in recent years. On the one hand, it is frequently credited as being the strategy behind the success of the surge in Iraq. Yet, at the same time, it is also described in a way that makes it sound rather appealing to liberals. The most common one-sentence description of the doctrine is that it is focused on “protecting the local population rather than killing the maximum number of enemies” which makes it sound relatively cautious and even rather humane. Because it is usually presented in this appealing way, the approach has received remarkably little critical scrutiny.
(In fact, the general lack of clarity about what the doctrine actually entails was the major source of the confusion that emerged during the last few weeks. Last March, in the six-page “White Paper of the Interagency Policy Group” that defined US policy toward the Af-Pac region, there was actually only a single paragraph specifically devoted to the role of counterinsurgency in protecting the Afghan population. It read as follows: “Our counter-insurgency strategy must integrate population security with building effective local governance and economic development. We will establish the security needed to provide space and time for stabilization and reconstruction activities.”
To people unfamiliar with FM-3-24 these words sounded comfortably vague and relatively benign. But based on standard formulas for estimating the appropriate size of forces in COIN operations a literal interpretation of the paragraph above could be argued to require the deployment of as many as 600,000 troops to Afghanistan. The COIN specialists in the Interagency Policy Group all understood this potential interpretation of the paragraph when it was included in the draft and now point to these two sentences as having represented a binding presidential commitment to a vast expansion of the US forces and mission. As a recent Washington Post article has outlined, however, a number of the non-COIN participants in the drafting of the White Paper absolutely did not intend these few words to represent a binding, open-ended commitment on Obama’s part for a massive increase in US forces)
More important than this confusion, however, is the fact that Counterinsurgency doctrine has two fundamental weaknesses.


Who Triggers the Public Option?

The progressive zeitgeist during the last week has leaned pretty strongly in the direction of a health care reform system that would provide for a strong public option that states could either opt into or opt out of, as opposed to a “triggered” public option where, in theory at least, objective market conditions would determine what happens in particular states.
Interestingly enough, one of the Democratic senators considered shaky on health reform, Bill Nelson of Florida, said today he favored the “trigger” over any state option. When you look at the state Nelson represents, you can perhaps understand it. At present, Florida has a Republican governor and a Republican-controlled legislature, and is facing a highly competitive 2010 election cycle. (For the record, I’ve been raising my own alarms about the impact of a state option on the dynamics of the 2010 elections at the state level).
Why isn’t this point of view held more generally? It could be because the “trigger” idea emerged earlier than the various state option schemes, so that insistence on an “untriggered” public option became part of the general campaign against abandonment of the public option altogether. Or it may be because many progressives, citing polls, think the public option is so popular that resistance in the states can be overcome.
I don’t quite understand why anyone would assume that state legislatures are more resistant than the U.S. Senate to the blandishments and pressure of the forces opposing the public option, but it’s a legitimate argument in a debate that really needs to break out among all advocates of health care reform. Barring a “robust” national system, the public option is in fact going to be “triggered” in parts of the country one way or another. The question is who or what does the “triggering,” under what sorts of circumumstances.


From the Conservative Grassroots

Like a lot of progressive observers, I have obtained an impression of where conservatives and the Republican Party stand today from a variety of sources, including Republican politicians, right-wing journalists and bloggers, friends and family members of the conservative persuasion, and what I’ve learned about the conservative zeitgeist over many years.
Conor Friedersdorf is suppyling a new and fascinating source, via a short questionnaire he has distributed to Republican county chairmen around the country. He is posting responses, verbatim, at a new website called The GOP Speaks. Given the vast number of county chairs, no one response necessarily means a lot, but cumulatively (he’s up to 21 of them by now), they are very interesting, and generally reinforce the impression that grassroots GOPers are driving the pols to the right, not following them. Virtually all of them attribute socialist motives to the Obama administration, and most (while often distancing themselves from Bill O’Reilly) approve of the abrasive messages being dished out by right-wing cable types. There are a few calls for a “big tent party,” but only in the context of avoiding disputes between hard-core conservatives of different hues; quite a few denounce RINOs and explicitly call for a move to the Right.
As Dana Goldstein has pointed out, Friedersdorf’s respondents illustrate the striking extent to which conservatives have internalized the idea–which used to be a real fringe preoccupation–that contemporary liberals aren’t just proposing bad policies for the country, but are consciously and effectively destroying constitutional government. She suggests, plausibly, that some of this mindset may reflect the influence of Ron Paul and his followers, and perhaps also indicates an eclipse in the power of social conservatives. I’m not sure about this latter contention; it’s the right-to-lifers, after all, who have in the past most notably argued that the constitution was being shredded by “liberal activists” who were trying to remake America in the image of secular Europe if not Nazi Germany.
In any event, it’s a good idea to check in now and then on Friedersdorf’s unvarnished responses, particularly if you don’t have occasion to spend much time around grassroots conservatives in your daily life.


Cause and Effect

Many conservatives take umbrage at the charge that Fox “personalities” have any real power over the Republican Party. They should take a look at a new Salon piece by Gabriel Winant and Tim Bella laying out a timeline of attacks on the Obama administration by Glenn Beck that quickly made their way into the utterances of GOP politicians. They include the sudden obsession with policy “czars;” the demonization of Cass Sunstein and Van Jones; the suggestion that the president is seeking to indoctrinate young people into some sort of Hitler Youth style totalitarian shock force; the claim that the National Endowment for the Arts is heavily funding leftists; and the particularly bizarre argument that the U.S. Treasury is trying to create a global currency that would replace the dollar.
If conservatives want to dismiss Beck as nothing more than an entertainer with no practical impact on politics, they might want to tell their pols to stop dancing to his loony tunes.


The Art of ‘Winning Ugly’

John Harwood’s Sunday New York Times article, “Democrats Must Attack to Win in 2010, Strategists Say” provides a good summation of the argument that Democrats are going to have to play rougher than usual to minimize losses next year. Harwood draws from the views of ‘nonpartisan political handicapper’ Charlie Cook and Democratic pollster Geoff Garin, who urges Dems not to “defend and justify,” but instead make Republican obstructionism “a central part of the debate.” Harwood lays out some sobering numerical realities to show why a more aggressive posture for Dems is needed:

,,,Democrats currently have 28 House seats in jeopardy to the Republicans’ 14; 7 Senate seats to Republicans’ 6; 13 governorships to Republicans’ 9…In last month’s New York Times/CBS News Poll, nearly 8 in 10 Americans rated the economy as fairly or very bad. That is only a modest improvement from a year ago…In a recent Gallup survey, independent voters preferred Republican candidates for Congress by 45 percent to 36 percent; last October, they favored Democratic candidates 46 percent to 39 percent.

As Cook, who gives Dems a slight edge in holding the House next year, says in Harwood’s article, “They’re going to have to play really rough…For the average Democratic Congressional incumbent, the opposition researcher will be the most important person in the campaign.”
For Garin, the image of the GOP as “completely obstructionist” provides a powerful vulnerability for Dems to mine over the next year, a view strongly affirmed in poll data in our recent staff post on the latest DCorps ‘Public Polling Report.’ Cook also emphasizes “the key thing is to disqualify your opponent on a very personal, individual level.” Harwood also quotes Republican pollster Neil Newhouse, who says Dems must “make the opponent the issue…tie them to George Bush — and then make it personal,” using “our playbook.”
Harwood writes about the comeback gubernatorial campaigns of New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine and Virginia Democratic nominee R. Creigh Deeds, both of whom have gained substantial ground by intensifying their attacks on their opponents. Corzine has scored by nailing his opponent for using his personal leverage to avoid traffic tickets, while Deeds has hammered his adversary for extremist views expressed in a college paper. I haven’t seen the ads of the Deeds campaign, nor clips of his attacks, but it’s hard to imagine him getting much lasting traction from an opponent’s college paper.
The ‘less defense, more offense’ strategy makes good sense in the current political environment, as was instructively illustrated most recently by Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL). Grayson got great coverage by refusing to defend himself for what those sensitive Republicans saw as uncivil, and by seizing the media moment and going on the attack. But it’s important to remember that, more often, it takes money — lots of it for TV ads — to attack effectively. No matter how tough a candidate’s attacks, Dems can’t assume the media will report it adequately.
It’s also important to keep in mind that there are limits to what Harwood calls “winning ugly.” It’s more a matter of tone than content. Attacks must be tough and thorough, but without crossing the line into nasty, mean-spirited or petty. There is always a point at which the object of an attack can win sympathy. My guess is Rep. Grayson plays this card artfully, stopping just short of this point of diminishing returns.
To hold the line in the midterm elections, the next year must be a time of intensified Democratic attacks. As Paul Waldman, author of Being Right Is Not enough: What Progressives Can learn from Conservative Success, put it in a TomPaine.com post, “Democrats, Don’t Wimp Out,” :

Democrats should wake up every day thinking, “How can we keep Republicans on the run?” Never give them a moment’s rest, never let them advance their agenda, keep them on the defensive so they have to apologize for being the standard-bearers of a discredited ideology and a disgraced president. Do that, and every legislative battle and election to come will be that much more likely to swing in your favor.

That’s solid advice in any political year, and in 2010 in particular it could make the difference between political gridlock and a new era of Democratic accomplishments.


DCorps Analysis: GOP ‘Brand’ Tanking

A new ‘Public Polling Report’ by Democracy Corps, “Analysis of Public Polls Shows GOP Obstruction Damaging Republican Brand” darkens prospects for conservatives who were hoping to block health care reform and win back control of congress. According to the DCorps analysis,

…In the past week, both the AP and Gallup…have released surveys showing a significant decline in opposition to President Obama’s health care plan, with Gallup showing the plan favored by a 51 to 41 percent majority… Recent public polls show Americans weary of both the status quo in health care and Republican obstructionism: overwhelming majorities say Republicans lack ideas and put politics ahead of the nation’s needs. This extreme partisanship is contributing to the continued stagnant and unimpressive standing of the Republican brand and threatens to further isolate Republican leaders from the American political mainstream.

In addition to the AP and Gallup polls, the DCorps analysis also cited a range of recent polls spelling bad news for the Republicans regarding their obstruction of health care reform and in general. These include:

The Kaiser Family Foundation found that 57 percent of Americans say “it is more important than ever to take on health care reform now” versus 39 percent who says “we cannot afford to take on health care right now.”
A recent NBC/Wall Street Journal survey found that a 45 to 39 percent plurality think it would be better to “pass Obama’s health care plan” rather than not pass the plan and “keep the current system.”
A Democracy Corps survey conducted in early September finds 56 percent agreeing that Republicans are “More interested in partisan politics than solving the country’s problems.”
The same poll finds just 29 percent saying that Republicans have “new ideas for addressing the country’s problems,” a lower rating than when we last asked this question in 2005.
Quinnipiac finds just 29 percent think that Republicans are “making a good faith effort to cooperate” with Obama on health care, versus 59 percent who say they are not.
A CBS/New York Times survey finds that just 27 percent think Republican members of Congress are opposing Obama’s plans because they think they are “bad for the country” while 64 percent say they are doing it for “political reasons.”
CNN finds that 61 percent say Republicans are “being obstructionist for mostly political reasons” versus 35 percent who say they are being “constructive.”
A Washington Post/ABC survey finds 62 percent saying Republicans in Congress are “not making a good faith effort to cooperate” on health care, versus just 31 percent who say they are.
Pew finds that 62 percent of opponents of health care reform think that “policymakers who oppose the current proposals” should compromise with supporters while only 33 percent think they should try to block passage of legislation.
That Quinnipiac survey finds that just 25 percent approve of the way Republicans in Congress are handling their job, while 64 percent disapprove.
The latest Democracy Corps survey finds just 30 percent with a favorable opinion the GOP while 44 have an unfavorable opinion. That -14 point net approval rating is nearly twice as bad as it was on Election Day in 2008. Moreover, the net 17-point favorability gap between the two parties is down only slightly from Election Day 2008 and is still substantially larger than when Democrats secured their first of two successive wave victories on Election Day in 2006.
A similar analysis of Pew data from Brendan Nylan at Pollster.com finds that “the Republicans are currently viewed more negatively than any minority party in the previous four midterms in terms of both net favorables and the difference in net favorables between parties.”
The early September Democracy Corps survey finds that just 35 percent think Republicans are “on your side,” one of the most important traits we measure. This is down 7 points from when we last asked it the summer before the wave election of 2006.
The NBC/Wall Street Journal poll finds that just 21 percent approve of the job Republicans are doing on health care while 65 percent disapprove.

The DCorps report includes revealing comments behind the numbers drawn from focus groups, and provides linked sources for all of the aforementioned data points, which the analysis says “show the Republican brand in tatters.”


Next Challenge For “The Progressive Block”

Amidst the widely varying perspectives on the health care reform battle, one astute observer, Chris Bowers of Open Left, has always had a very clear focus. He’s viewed the public option fight in the context of a potentially momentous test of strength between congressional progressives (notably the House Progressive Caucus) and the Blue Dogs. In fact, Bowers has been something of a prime mover in what he’s dubbed the “Progressive Block” strategy, wherein the Democratic Left begins to emulate, in carefully chosen cases, Blue Dog willingness to threaten defeat for administration-backed legislation if its minimum requirements aren’t met.
Chris has become reasonably satisfied that the “Progressive Block” has or at least should have a big impact on the shape of health reform legislation. So now he’s looking down the road to other issues for which this strategy might be approrpriate:

[W]hat should House Progressives target next if they achieve this proof of concept? Climate change might not be feasible, since almost every House Progressive already voted in favor of the American Clean Energy and Security Act. Afghanistan probably won’t work, since their won’t be anymore supplemental appropriation bills (it will be merged into the budget now), and because Republicans will vote in favor of Afghanistan funding as long as it isn’t tied to any other legislation. Financial regulation is difficult because it requires drawing a bright line on such a murky subject. Immigration is a possibility, but given all of the delays in even introducing an immigration bill, it isn’t clear at all that the Democratic leadership considers immigration reform to be must-pass legislation.
The best bet is for Progressives to target the budget next year. Specifically, they should demand a substantial, probably 10%, increase in taxes on the wealthiest 1% of Americans.

Chris goes on to explain this suggestion in terms of various criteria: the upper-end tax cut would be popular, populist, fiscally responsible, unacceptable to any conservatives, and clearly eligible for budget reconciliation treatment (which avoids the 60-vote barrier in the Senate). In other words, it would be a potentially successful and fruitful initiative that would be highly differentiating by party and ideology. He doesn’t explicitly say this, but it would also represent a pretty direct challenge to the deficit-obsessed Blue Dogs.


The Right Reacts to The Prize

This item, a follow-up to J.P. Green’s post earlier, was cross-posted at The New Republic.
Taking a quick look around the right-wing fever swamps this morning, it was possible to form the opinion that the Nobel Prize Committee had honored Barack Obama with its peace prize in order to confuse and enrage American conservatives.
The Right clearly did not coordinate its talking points. There was in fact a breakfast buffet of reactions.
Dismissal of the prize as “anti-American” was one approach. At The Corner, Andy McCarthy suggested it be renamed the “Yasir Arafat Peace Prize,” and denounced the award as a “symbolic statement of opposition to American exceptionalism, American might, American capitalism, American self-determinism, and American pursuit of America’s interests in the world.”
Others went for pure snark along the traditional lines of mocking Obama as “The One.” Here’s Ann Althouse:

The question isn’t why did they give Barack Obama the Nobel Peace Prize. The question is why didn’t he get the Olympics.
The story of Barack Obama is the story of winning things when he hasn’t yet done enough to deserve them. He is, quite simply, Barack Obama. We understand that. Why didn’t the IOC understand? You could see it in that smile on his face, when he concluded his little speech in Copenhagen, that he bore the sublime knowledge he would acquire the Olympics for Chicago. Because he is Barack Obama, the man to whom grand prizes are given.

Then there were those who suggested a sinister intention by the Nobel Committee to force Obama even further in his horrible anti-American direction. That was the tack taken by Rush Limbaugh:

And with this award the elites of the world are urging Obama THE MAN OF PEACE not to do the surge in Afghanistan, not take action against Iran and its nuclear program and to basically continue his intentions to emasculate the United States.

Finally, and I didn’t delve deeply into such literature, some on the Right just went nasty nuts. Behold the reaction of Erick Erickson of the prominent conservative site RedState: “I did not realize the Nobel Peace Prize had an affirmative action quota for it, but that is the only thing I can think of for this news.”
(Oops, sorry, I forgot: by mentioning this slur, I am guilty of playing the “race card.”)
It will be interesting to see which of these interpretive themes will emerge as the conservative consensus choice. One thing’s for sure: the Right will claim what many have called an “aspirational award” damages Obama’s domestic political standing, for that is their own fond aspiration.