washington, dc

The Democratic Strategist

Political Strategy for a Permanent Democratic Majority

Month: January 2009

Defining Obama’s Political Strategy: Radical Pragmatism, Grassroots Bipartisanship and the Abandoned Center by Ed Kilgore

As Barack Obama prepares to take office on January 20, 2009, after a remarkable ten weeks of quasi-presidency, a debate continues to rage inside and outside his Democratic Party. Does this man have a firm ideology, a governing philosophy, or even a “theory of change?” Is he a “progressive,” a “liberal,” or a “pragmatist?” Is his rhetoric of “hope and change,” of “post-partisanship and common purpose” a core value, a political asset, or a smoke-screen? Is he FDR, or Jimmy Carter, or Bill Clinton, or something else entirely?
Read the entire memo here.


Let’s face it. All too often Democrats end up just yelling at each other when they try to discuss long-term political strategy – with the challenges that confront us, it’s urgent that we figure out how to do better.

It’s no secret that the groups that compose the Democratic coalition have dramatically different perspectives on many issues. But on one key topic they do agree. Democrats – whether in the Obama administration, Congress or the nation – recognize that they face an unparalleled set of strategic challenges today. As a result, they urgently need to develop more productive ways to debate political strategy within the Democratic coalition.
The challenge is to figure out how to conduct intra-Democratic debates in a way that doesn’t end up in a shouting match but rather clarifies the points of contention and achieves the maximum degree of collaboration and cooperation. Productive debates between Democrats should accomplish three objectives (1) identify the areas of agreement and common action (2) identify the issues that can be clarified or settled with data and (3) agree on ways to work together in a spirit of mutual respect in areas where there are fundamental disagreements on matters of principle.
Today, debates among Dems often accomplish none of these goals. Instead, the participants end up talking across purposes and conclude in frustrated mutual incomprehension.
There is one basic, underlying problem that is often at the root of this failure. Debates among Dems frequently do not distinguish disagreements over political principles from disagreements over political strategy. The result is arguments that do not genuinely engage with each other in a meaningful way.
The controversy over Rick Warren provides a good example:
On the one hand, opponents of Warren’s participation in the inauguration tend to argue that his invitation is unacceptable as a matter of fundamental political principle. One of the most widely read expressions of this point of view was a Washington Post commentary by the usually rather conservative Richard Cohen:

…what we do not hold in common [with Warren] is the categorization of a civil rights issue — the rights of gays to be treated equally — as some sort of cranky cultural difference. For that we need moral leadership, which, on this occasion, Obama has failed to provide.

For many of these critics, Obama’s choice represents a betrayal – a totally unprincipled betrayal — of the people who supported him. Here is playwright Harvey Fierstein, for example, writing in the Huffington Post.

President Elect Obama, your victory was made possible in no small part to the votes and wallets of the gay and lesbian community along with our supporters. Turning your back on us does not make you more mainstream American. It just makes you a coward.

In contrast, many of the most widely read defenses of Obama’s choice — commentaries by Andrew Sullivan of The Atlantic and singer Melissa Etheridge, for example — do not actually disagree at all about the basic political principle involved – they fully support the right to gay marriage. Instead, their arguments in favor of allowing Warren to participate in the inauguration are based entirely on considerations of political strategy.
Here is Sullivan:

In our hurt, we may be pushing away from a real opportunity to engage and win hearts and minds… I think Obama is different. I think the earnestness and sincerity of his campaign, and its generational force, have given us a chance for something new, and I fear that in responding too viscerally to the Warren choice, we may be throwing something very valuable away far too prematurely

And here is Etheridge:

Sure, there are plenty of hateful people who will always hold on to their bigotry like a child to a blanket. But there are also good people out there, Christian and otherwise that are beginning to listen. They don’t hate us, they fear change. Maybe in our anger, as we consider marches and boycotts, perhaps we can consider stretching out our hands.

Each side does briefly acknowledge that the other side is arguing on fundamentally different grounds, but only in a one or two sentence throw-away mention that is quickly dismissed. Here is Cohen:

I can understand Obama’s desire to embrace constituencies that have rejected him. Evangelicals are in that category and Warren is an important evangelical leader… [Obama says we can] “focus on those things that we hold in common as Americans”. Sounds nice. But what we do not “hold in common” is the dehumanization of homosexuals. What we do not hold in common is the belief that gays are perverts who have chosen their sexual orientation on some sort of whim…

And here is Fierstein:

He can call the placing of a hate monger like Rick Warren on the world dais political healing or inclusiveness or any other nicety he’d like, but I call it pandering to the lowest instinct of the worst kind of politics.

In similar fashion, the supporters of Obama’s choice generally begin by saying something along the lines of …“I do deeply and sincerely understand the anger and frustration that the GLBT community is feeling right now”…but this is quickly followed by a “But at the same time…” followed by a discussion of political strategy.
The result is a “debate” in which neither side really “debates” the other. Neither ever directly analyzes and critically evaluates the central arguments the other is offering on its own terms. The two points of view sail passed each other with barely any contact. It is, as the cliché says, like a “dialog of the deaf.”
And the problem will only get worse. In the coming period debates of this kind will multiply because many elements of Democratic coalition – – peace advocates, Latinos, young Blacks, Women, Union members — can all correctly claim that a fundamental political principle underlies their demands and that they provided significant support for Obama and therefore deserve his support in return.
What the Democrats need is a common, coherent framework for discussing these issues – a way of distinguishing arguments over the moral and political principles underlying an issue from the choice of the appropriate political strategy.


Can the GOP Expand Its Demographic Base While Moving Right?

At the American Prospect site, Paul Waldman’s written a good summary of the demographic trends that have largely doomed the Republican Party’s ancient strategy of winning national majorities by appealing to the “upoor, the unblack, and the unyoung.” And as Waldman notes, there aren’t too many signs that today’s Republicans understand that the old strategy won’t work anymore.
I’d go a bit further than Waldman, whose main evidence for GOP cluelessness involves the “Barack the Magic Negro” incident. That’s bad enough, but there’s every indication that Republicans (beyond a few smart but powerless intellectuals like Ross Douthat or David Frum) are thoroughly united in the belief that a more rigorous fidelity to conservative ideology in all its particulars is not only consistent with the party’s strategic needs, but is essential to their achievement.
Even RNC Chair candidate Michael Steele, who has consistently condemned Chip Saltsman’s tone-deaf racist “jokes” as damaging to the party, still buys into the idea that there’s an audience of Democratic and independent–and African-American and Latino–voters who would gravitate to the GOP if they understood how thoroughly the party has resolved to eschew “moderate” heresies. The manifesto for his candidacy is very blunt on this central issue:

Moderates in our party, and liberal elements outside it, have tried to steer this debate toward the suggestion that we need to change our core views, desert our convictions and give up our conservative philosophy. This is nonsense. The country did not become liberal on November 4. In fact, just the reverse is true.

So speaks the “moderate” candidate for RNC chair.
This raises a very simple question: is it possible to be rigorously conservative at this particular moment in history while successfully reaching out to demographic categories of voters who either have always been or are trending in the direction of a firm attachment to the Democratic Party? Or to put it another way, are the attitudes that have repelled, say, minority voters truly detachable from conservative ideology?
In my opinion, the true test of these dubious “move right and win more voters” hypotheses isn’t whether Republicans repudiate stupidly racist tactics and messages, but whether they repudiate sophisticated racist tactics and messages that amount to the same thing. And for that reason, it’s extremely telling that none of the candidates for RNC chairman, or any other conservative thinker or talker that I’ve heard, has yet to express any doubts about the demographic impact of the McCain-Palin message down the homestretch of the presidential campaign, which was heavily based on the argument that Barack Obama and the Democratic Party were determined to ruin the country on behalf of its unworthy minority-group constituencies.
Did efforts to promote minority homeownership actually cause the financial crisis? Is a progressive tax code truly “socialist?” Are refundable income tax credits really “welfare?” Is a presumption in favor of the right to vote geniunely “voter fraud?” Are doubts about the Iraq War in fact “treason” or “a failure to support the troops?” Is support for comprehensive immigration reform indeed a matter of subordinating the very idea of citizenship to a crass desire to build a dependent Latino political base? Are women seeking legal abortions carrying out an American Holocaust? Are gays and lesbians determined to destroy the institutions of marriage and family?
All these conservative talking points during the campaign carried all sorts of nasty and exclusive demographic freight, as evidenced by the fact that they were generally delivered by politicians who avoided the more hamhanded “Barack the Magic Negro” types of rhetorical overkill.
This is not to say that conservatives are subjectively racist, homophobic, nativist, or antifeminist. But conservatives need to come to grips with the very real possibility that large elements of their ideology are leading them ineluctably to political appeals that are perceived by people outside their coalition as excluding them or as terribly hostile to their own interests.
All things being equal, it’s probably good for the GOP to avoid sounding like Jesse Helms, to express at least occasional contempt for their talk-radio or Fox TV clowns, to recruit candidates who aren’t white men, and to do all the other practical things “reformers” are suggesting to improve the party’s mechanics and outreach. But all things aren’t equal when it comes to what Republicans need in order to break out of their demographic box. “Moving to the right” or even “clearly conveying core conservative values” are basically attractive to the same old coalition that is now failing the GOP. Perhaps more votes can be squeezed out of the old turnip with better technology, more attractive candidates, and a clearer message. And maybe fidelity to what conservatives consider to be the eternal truth of their ideology is worth losing a few more elections.
But the widespread, almost universal conservative search for anything, everything, other than ideology as the source of the GOP’s demographic problems could well be a blind spot that keeps them wandering in the wilderness, endlessly looking for more attractive ways to package the same product. It would be nice to see a few more conservatives consider that possibility.


Is Obama Pre-Compromising the Stimulus Package?

Progressive chatterers are in a bit of a stir over reports that the Obama administration’s Great Big Stimulus package could include as much as $300 billion in tax cuts, out of a total figure of approximately $750 billion.
Arguments over this alleged opening position can be divided into those who focus on economics, and on politics (Jonathan Cohn has a good overview of all the arguments at TNR).
Progressive economists, led by Paul Krugman, have largely defended the proposition that some kinds of tax cuts are inevitable and potentially worthy in a stimulus package of this size, if only because it’s tough to come up with upwards of three-quarters-of-a-trillion dollars in spending that (a) will boost consumption and employment immediately, and (b) don’t all represent permanent spending commitments that may be unaffordable in a year or two. And according to much of the guesswork going on right now, no more than a third of the tax cuts said to be in the Obama package are the sort of “business incentives” that Republicans love but that arguably don’t produce short-term economic gains.
The political arguments over offering this level of tax cuts are more interesting. There’s a widespread progressive fear–expressed by Krugman, Cohn, and especially MoJo’s Kevin Drum and Political Animal’s Hilzoy, among others–have expressed that this is an example of that Obama Bipartisanship they’ve been worried about. Here’s Hilzoy:

According to the WSJ, one reason for relying so heavily on tax cuts is that “it may make it easier to win over Republicans who have stressed that any initiative should rely more heavily on tax cuts rather than spending.” To which I can only say: screw them. Their economic philosophy got us into this mess; we should not let them force us to use ineffective means to get out of it.
If the Democrats can’t keep enough of their Senators in line to get this passed, and corral a couple of Republicans, then we’re in worse shape than I imagine. I’d really rather try to do it right before preemptively conceding to the Mitch McConnells of the world.

I don’t know that I would rely much on the Wall Street Journal to interpret Barack Obama’s political motives at this point, but again, the fear that he would get rolled by Republicans has been a concern in many progressive circles going back to the very beginning of his presidential campaign.
I have a different theory of what may be going on, based on a very different interpretation of Obama’s “bipartisanship” than is common among progressives. If, as I’ve suggested, Obama’s strategy is to pursue a form of “grassroots bipartisanship” that builds broad public support outside Washington, a stimulus package that includes significant and popular middle-class-oriented tax cuts–a centerpiece, lest we forget, of his presidential campaign–makes a lot of sense. It’s Republican, independent, and Democratic constituencies outside Washington–already roiled by the special-interest orientation of earlier “bailout” or “stimulus” measures–that are most likely to welcome tax cuts that actually benefit them, assuming that will represent the bulk of the $300 billion we are talking about.
As for Team Obama’s alleged interest in kowtowing to Mitch McConnell–again, there’s no real evidence to suggest that they’ve made or are willing to make major concessions to get more than a handful of GOP conservatives (which is all they will need if Democrats stick together) on board. Best I can tell, the idea is to move the whole package through the budget reconciliation process, which facilitates big up-or-down votes rather than death-by-amendment. Crafting a package that’s appealing to the public as big, immediate in impact, and focused on both broad national challenges and middle-class pocketbooks is most likely to create the Reagan-1981 dynamic of a coherent “bipartisan” piece of legislation that demands majority support outside and inside Congress. If that’s true, then perhaps the “compromises” supposedly being made in the development of the package are the last, not the first.


Confirmation Tips

Today’s Washington Post has an amusing but quite serious tip sheet for those facing Senate confirmation hearings, but Tom Korologus, an expert on this esoteric topic. Here’s the best advice he offers:

Remember that most of the hearing will be more about the questioners than about you. Prepare a short opening statement — no more than five minutes — outlining the president’s goals and your goals for the department. Submit a longer “think piece” for the record….
Hearings can be judged by the 80-20 rule. If the senators are speaking 80 percent of the time, you’re doing fine. If it’s 60-40, you are arguing with them. If it’s 50-50, you’ve blown it.

That rule obviously can’t apply to those nominees who are themselves senators, but otherwise, it’s a good rule of thumb.


Democrats — Liberal to Conservative — Still Strongly Support Obama

Apparently the “liberals feel betrayed” meme being parroted about the mainstream media and even the blogosphere, has been somewhat overhyped, according to a new Gallup report. As Jeffrey M. Jones Gallup wrap-up, “Liberals’ Confidence in Obama Rermains High,” explains:

Gallup Poll Daily tracking finds support for Barack Obama among liberal Democrats holding steady at 93% despite news reports that his core supporters are disappointed with some of his cabinet appointments and other decisions
..Obama’s recent decision to have conservative preacher Rick Warren deliver the invocation at the Jan. 20 presidential inauguration and his choices of Republicans Robert Gates and Ray LaHood for cabinet positions have been controversial among members of the political left. Additionally, women’s groups have been reported as expressing disappointment that Obama has not selected more women for cabinet-level positions in his administration. But these decisions apparently have not shaken liberal Democrats’ confidence in Obama to any perceptible degree, according to aggregated data of thousands of Gallup Poll daily interviews from the immediate post-election period (Nov. 5-30), early December (Dec. 1-17) after he announced many of his cabinet choices, and in recent days (Dec. 18-28) after announcing Warren’s role in the inauguration, arguably his most controversial action to date.

Jones notes “a slight drop in confidence in Obama among liberals” just after Obama announced his security team. But liberals now support Obama “at the same levels seen right after his election” (89 percent), as do moderate and conservative Dems. Jones also cites an uptick in Republicans confidence in Obama and a “a slight increase in confidence” among all Americans, from 65 to 67 percent, during the last two weeks. Jones concludes that “liberal Democrats nationwide continue to express strongly positive opinions of the president-elect,” but cautions that

This does not rule out the possibility that liberal Democrats still rate Obama positively on balance but have become less enthusiastic about him in ways that would not be picked up by the basic confidence and favorability measures reported here. These measures only offer respondents a positive or negative response, so any drop in the degree of positive (or negative) feeling would not be apparent.

Overall, it appears that Obama still has substantial political capital with Democrats across the political spectrum, while gaining some ground with moderate Republicans, which gives him a solid position in terms of building public support for his reform agenda.


Land of Disenchantment

It’s been a tumultuous Sunday for the Obama administration and New Mexico Democrats, as NM Governor and Commerce Secretary-designate Bill Richardson removed himself from consideration for the Cabinet pending the completion of a federal investigation of road contracts granted to a Richardson political contributor.
It’s unclear at this point how much if any evidence of wrongdoing has been gathered. The timing of any continuing “pay for play” investigation is obviously bad, thanks to Rod Blagojevich. We also don’t know if Richardson jumped out of the Commerce nomination or was pushed. Certainly the amounts of money involved in the suspected quid ($110,000 in contributions to two Richardson political funds) or the suspected quo ($1.48 million in state highway work) were not very large.
This development, however it turns out, is a definite bummer for New Mexico’s Democratic Lieutenant Governor Diane Denish, who was preparing to take office. Richardson has made it clear he will resume his gubernatorial duties, but he’s term-limited in 2010. Denish will almost certainly run for the job then, but apparently without the benefits of incumbency, if incumbency really is a benefit to anyone trying to govern in the current economic environment.
There’s no hint of names so far to replace Richardson as Commerce Secretary; since his was one of the first announcements made, speculation had not developed very far as to alternatives. One political problem for Team Obama is that the putative Cabinet has now lost its most prominent Latino.


Fire on the Mountain: Blue/Green Coalitions and Why They Work

Editor’s note: this item is a reader submission from Christopher Burks, a University of Arkansas law student who has worked for the John Edwards for President campaign, the Democratic Party of Arkansas, the AFL-CIO, and in local Ozark politics.
I. Intro
Ozark Hill Country Populism is alive and well above the land of Wal-Mart and, if employed with a clear call incorporated across all messaging, such economic populism will now win Democrats campaigns across demographically diverse districts.
II. Fire on the Mountain
“The People,” yells the bearded, foot-stomping speaker. “The People,” thunders the fiery, ever-louder man, his face shaking as his calls bounce around the dimly lit basement barroom, unable to contain the near wrath within.
“Two Words: The People.” Ever louder, this cry reverberates several more times in the course of what can’t be described as standard political stump speech.
Few calls are so impassioned, so fiery, that they make the leap to something beyond a mere sound bite. But it is undeniable that such a rallying cry can sear itself into the popular imagination.
Cesar Chavez stood in solidarity with farm laborers and cried for dignity. William Jennings Bryan proclaimed farmers and laborers were one and cried for a monetary policy that didn’t hang people out to dry in the harsh winds of famine. Huey Long cried that every man should be a King.
King cried for peace and reconciliation, but his Dream was delivered at a march organized for jobs and justice.
Bryan, Long, Chavez, and King were products of differing times and ideologies, but all knew that economic security was the way forward for workers and each punctured the air with cries to stop the robber barons in what each viewed as a gilded age.
Ultimately, though, clarion calls can too become coda. Men and nations may become a caricature of their former imagined selves, but, here atop a beautiful Ozark hill ensconced in the full majesty of fall colors, “The People” is finding its place amongst the rallying cries of yonder lore and is cementing the political consciousness of the citizenry, ever mindful of the motto of the Great State of Arkansas:
“Regnat Populus. The People Rule.”
III. 21st Century Economic Populism
The common thread weaving through the clarion calls above is clear: populism that worked.


Marxists on the Sidelines

I’m ashamed to admit it, but I’m about to waste a few more glorious hours watching a college football bowl game. But those of you who are similarly inclined should definitely read Jonathan Chait’s fine rant at the New Republic site about the egregious self-congratulation of corporate CEOs at these sponsored events, which is particularly annoying at this particular moment of history.
Chait imagines a closet Marxist working for a sports network cutting loose on the air with a few choice remarks:

“Capitalist Pig, last year most of your workforce earned wages that would not allow them to raise a family outside of poverty, while you took home $473 million, including a private jet and your own vacation island. Meanwhile this arrangement is hammered home by the ubiquitous corporate logos plastered over every inch of the stadium. Give me one good reason why the crowd shouldn’t tar and feather you right here on the spot.”

It will never happen, of course, in part because, as Chait observes:

Sadly, all the Marxists are in academia rather than broadcast sports. That’s the problem with Marxists. They’re everywhere you don’t want them to be and nowhere you really need them

Workers, peasants, and progressive couch-potatoes, unite and smash the paper-tiger imperialsts and their liveried lackies at the World-Wide Leader In Sports!


Silver Linings

Any summary of all the year-end assessments of 2008 would be incomplete without taking note of Rich Lowry’s column on the years of American history that were worse. He lists 1798, 1837, 1862, 1940 and 1968 as bigger bummers. And that’s coming from a conservative who undoubtedly considers the electoral results of 2008 a large calamity.
This silver-lining column did not represent a unanimous conservative judgment, of course. At Lowry’s National Review site, Victor Davis Hanson called 2008 “the Roaring 20s, the bleak 1930s, and the Sixties — all rolled into one,” and worse yet, as a time when “50 years’ worth of careful thinking and hard-won wisdom were erased, as the Reagan Revolution, the work of Milton Freidman, and the classical free-market ethos were suddenly Trotskyized.”
Now that’s a silver lining any progressive can appreciate.