This item is a guest post from the National Security Network’s Executive Director, Heather Hurlburt, and its Director of Outreach, Ryan Keenan. The views expressed herein are their own.
The “Ground Zero mosque” debate of recent weeks has claimed several casualties: Muslim-Americans’ confidence in their homeland and its Constitution, Howard Dean’s credibility on the left, and, as Peter Beinart wrote, the U.S.’s ability to lay claim to intellectual generalship in a global “war of ideas.” But perhaps less-noticed was a body blow to the 2012 presidential hopes of Newt Gingrich.
Early on, he had signed up to headline a fear-mongering rally at the site of the proposed Cordoba House on September 11 with former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, conservative media luminary Andrew Breitbart and far-right Dutch Parliamentarian Geert Wilders. But an onslaught of opposition from all ends of the political spectrum led Gingrich to withdraw, leading his staff to deny he had ever intended to appear – though the announcement on Wilders’ website that the anniversary “will witness two eagles” suggests otherwise.
Make no mistake about it: This appearance was about the 2012 Republican presidential race, not the “Islamization of America.” In order to win the Republican nomination, Newt needs to get past religious conservatives’ reservations about his personal life. He must reel in Tea Partiers to whom his credentials make him part of the Establishment; gain the blessing of that same establishment; and court neoconservatives without scaring off independents.
For Newt in 2012 – and for far too many GOP candidates in 2010 – rhetoric about Shariah law, “Ground Zero mosques” and “Terror Babies” is a tempting “us”-vs.-“them” narrative that papers over an ugly little secret.
As much of the national narrative leading into November’s midterms has been division and disappointment among the Democratic base, on national security there are unnoticed but enormous policy and ideological differences within the Republican base. The nativism of the Tea Party movement and the neo-isolationism of Ron and Rand Paul directly contradict the priorities of mainstream Republicans and neoconservatives. Only with difficulty can conservatives embrace the Pauls, with their opposition to the Iraq invasion, skepticism on the Afghanistan war and waffling on issues of detainee treatment. As Ann Coulter said earlier this year at the Conservative Political Action Conference, “if Ron Paul supports it and it’s not about foreign policy, I’m for it.” [Emphasis added].
Tea Party-driven candidates add another layer of challenge. Dan Maes in Colorado thinks the UN is using bicycles to take over his state. Colorado Senate candidate Ken Buck brags about turning down Dick Cheney’s offer of a Pentagon job. Sharon Angle in Nevada spent six years in the American Independent Party, the Nevada branch of the Constitution Party (with whom a variety of other tea party-oriented Republicans have links). The foreign policy platform of the Constitution Party deserves quotation in full:

The only constitutional basis and purpose of foreign policy is to serve the interests of this nation. We should not be the world’s police-man. We pledge our only allegiance to the American Republic. We shout a resounding “NO!” to any one-world government or so-called New World Order. Not one whit of American autonomy may be surrendered to any international organization or cartel of nations. We oppose entangling foreign alliances. The United States [sic] should withdraw from the UN and NATO and bring home our overseas forces. We should review all existing treaties to determine which go beyond constitutional limits. Those that do should be rescinded.

These differences can be managed in an off-year election dominated by an endless trickle of bad economic news – if your opponents allow you to manage them. The strategy is simple: Limit discussion of Afghanistan (see for example the reaction to RNC Chairman Michael Steele, whose comments track public opinion as closely as any public official pronouncements of late). Pick some hardy perennials that get the base riled up – thus the GOP in-district playbook’s emphasis on missile defense, military spending, borders, terrorists and Iran. (The Obama administration and Democratic Congress have increased spending on all those things, in fact. But who’s counting?)
But to emerge in a crowded field to unseat the commander-in-chief two years from now, it’s tempting to try something a bit more daring: a new culture war. Gingrich’s soundbite — “There should be no mosque near Ground Zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia” — gives religious and social conservatives the “Christians under attack” narrative we remember from fights over abortion, gay marriage and Teri Schiavo. This time, the “them” refers to Muslims, not liberals – at a moment when 46% of Republicans tell a Time pollster that Obama is a Muslim. For the Tea Partier, the message is slightly different. Although one would think freedom of religion would logically be appealing to people who brag about constitutionalism and limited government, spinning this as an outside “them” intruding on American soil “us” hits the nativist nerve of a movement with leaders like Mark Williams who think Muslims worship a “monkey god.”
Third, this line plays to the neoconservative obsession with power and the Middle East. It creates an image of American impotence with “them” (Muslims) intruding into American society and “us” not being able to build a church or synagogue in Saudi Arabia. And finally, the fact that it involves 9/11 and Ground Zero loops-in Independents.
There’s just one problem – as Gingrich’s precipitous retreat from the rally shows. The public’s position on this is far more nuanced, combining a discomfort with the unfamiliar with an awareness of the deep constitutional issues that the debate raises. In a recent Fox News poll, by a 53% to 41% margin, Independents believed it was “wrong” to build the mosque. But in the same poll, by a 69% to 29% advantage, Independents believed the group had the right to build the mosque. A CNN Opinion research poll of the nation at large shows similar numbers with a 70%-29 % margin opposing the construction but 64% supporting the developers’ right to build it. This week a spate of respected Republican, Independent and national security voices spoke out to warn that the debate harms our social cohesion, our Constitution and our national security.
Can a presidential candidate lie down with the animalistic motivations behind the current spate of hate-filled rhetoric, Koran burnings and disgraceful retreats from our Constitution without waking up with a potentially-fatal case of the fleas? It looks as if Gingrich has decided the answer is “no.” Others in his party might want to learn from his example – and Democrats as well as Republicans might want to think about what it means when one of our two major parties’ national security platform can be summed up as, “build missile defense, not mosques.”

This item by TDS Co-Editor William Galston is cross-posted from The New Republic.
Beneath the headlines of the latest NBC/Wall Street Journal survey are some key findings about the voter attitudes that will define the terrain of this year’s midterm election. For this Democrat, at least, they are deeply disquieting.
Three sets of findings jumped out at me. The first addresses the kind of election this will be.
· When asked if their representative’s positions on national issues or performance on local issues would be more important in influencing their vote for congress, 46 percent or respondents said national and 41 said percent local. In 2006, voters split 40 to 36; in 1994, 35 to 51.
· When asked a follow-up question about the relative importance of domestic issues such as the economy, health care, and immigration versus international issues such as Afghanistan, Iraq, and terrorism, 73 percent said domestic and 12 percent said international, while 15 percent rated them of equal importance. In 2006, the corresponding breakdown was 43/28/28.
In short, the survey supports what most observers have long believed: to a greater extent than usual, national issues will shape this year’s midterm, and of those issues, domestic issues are unusually dominant. (We know from numerous other polls that among domestic issues, concerns about the economy swamp everything else.)
In this context, we proceed to a second set of findings, which concern President Obama and the economy.
· Compared to when Barack Obama became president, only 31 percent of respondents think the country is better off, while 40 percent think it’s worse off and 28 percent believe it’s about the same.
· Only 37 percent are very or quite confident that Obama has the right set of goals and policies to improve the economy, versus 63 percent who are only somewhat or not at all confident. The represents a significant deterioration from June 2009, when “very” or “quite confident” totaled 46 percent and “only somewhat” or “not at all” stood at 53 percent.
· The public’s evaluation of Obama’s handling of the economy has deteriorated in recent months, from 48 approve, 46 disapprove in May to 46/50 in June and 44/52 today. This is consistent with the increasing pessimism the survey reports. In January of this year, 53 percent thought that that recession had not yet hit bottom and still had a way to go. Today, that figure stands at 64 percent.
· Perceptions of the president’s stance toward the business community don’t seem to be working in his favor. 29 percent see him as too anti-business, versus only 14 percent who view him as too pro-business.
This brings me to the third set of findings–public attitudes about the congress and political parties.
· Today, only 6 percent of respondents rate this congress as above average or one of the best, while fully 60 percent view it as below average or one of the worst. (By contrast, the breakdown before the 2006 midterms was 5 to 56; before the 1994 midterms, 7 to 44.)
· For the first time since 2004, Republicans enjoy an edge over Democrats on dealing with the economy.
· After a five year period in which Democrats held the advantage on reducing the federal budget deficit, Republicans have moved into an eight point lead.
· As recently as 2007, Democrats were favored over Republicans to control federal spending by a margin of 36 to 20. Now that has reversed, with Republicans favored 37 to 23.
In sum, this midterm election will be dominated by national issues, especially the economy; the public is losing confidence in President Obama’s economic program; public evaluations of the performance of the Democratic-led congress could hardly be worse; and Republicans have regained the advantage on key economic issues.
Not all the news in this survey is bad for Democrats. The generic vote is roughly tied–not great, but it could be worse. And by 43 to 39 percent, respondents were more worried by the absence of Republican alternatives to current policies than they were by the prospect that Democrats won’t change those policies.
Still, I came away from this survey with an even deeper sense of foreboding about the fall. To avert disaster, Democrats will have to exploit every local and candidate advantage they have, and their GOTV effort will have to overcome truly daunting obstacles.

At a time when it’s fashionable to draw analogies between 1994 and 2010, you hear some deficit hawks argue that Barack Obama needs to emulate Bill Clinton’s early emphasis on reducing the federal budget deficit instead of investing in job-producing activities on grounds that bond markets were sending a clear signal via higher interest rates that deficit reduction was imperative.
But as budget expert Stan Collender points out, bond markets today are sending exactly the opposite signal:

The economic situation today is the opposite of what existed at the start of the Clinton administration. In 1993, the bond market was worried about excess demand and soaring inflation, which would have eroded the value of bonds. Having the federal government spend less and tax more — that is, do things that would reduce the deficit — meant that the economy would cool rather than overheat, and therefore that the demand for goods, services, and workers would be reduced. This would keep inflation in check and allow federal bonds to maintain their value.
The big concern today is about deflation and slow growth rather than inflation and overheating. With unemployment high and capacity utilization low, the bond market not only isn’t worried about the excessive economic growth, it actually would welcome the additional activity that would be generated by higher spending and lower taxes.

Thus, concludes Collender, the pressure for deficit reduction right now is political, not economic, in nature. Markets aren’t reaching the conclusion that Herbert Hoover, not FDR, was right about how to deal with high unemploment and low consumer demand; politicians are, with self-fulfilling negative results as the federal government withdraws from efforts to stimulate the economy.

On the outside chance that you are an incurable optimist who thinks the political, economic and international challenges facing the Obama administration have been overrated, you should check out Jeffrey Goldberg’s long article in The Atlantic about the slowly growing likelihood that Israel will soon decide to launch a unilateral military attack on nuclear facilities in Iran.
Putting aside the more obvious risks to life involved, the economic consequences of a regional war in the Middle East are simply terrifying. And it appears it will take an extraordinarily deft diplomatic stance by the United States–or abundant good luck of the sort that’s been hard to find of late–to head off some sort of armed confrontation between Israel and Iran, with “moderate” Arab states in the background urging the Israelis on.
If Goldberg’s even half right about the trajectory of events, this issue needs to become much more prominent in U.S. politics, beyond the saber-rattling of neocons whose Iraqi adeventure didn’t satisfy their taste for archair military strategery.

As charges fly back and forth in connection with White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs’ outburst at “the professional left,” TDS contributors Robert Creamer and Mike Lux offer some useful perspective:
Here’s Creamer:

They used to say that the thing that is most likely to end war and conflict between the nations of the world would be an existential threat from a group of aliens from outer space.
The same must be true for Democrats and Progressives. Time to give up the bickering, the infighting, the name calling — and unite to prevent the Empire from striking back.
No more aspersions about the “professional left.” No more talk about how the Obama White House sold out this or that issue or cause.
For those who are so inclined there will be plenty of time for all that once again after November 2nd. Right now our job is to make sure that Republicans do not become a majority in either House of Congress, for that is certain to bring serious progressive change to screeching halt.

And here’s Lux:

Our job as progressives is to never be satisfied, to always be impatient with the pace of change. Frederick Douglass, Alice Paul, Walter Reuther, Martin Luther King, Jr.- none of them were ever satisfied with the progress being made, and the Presidents they worked with were constantly aggravated at the pressure they received. But big changes got done when Presidents understood the importance of working effectively with them and the movements they represented.

As both Creamer and Lux suggest, the White House and the “professional Left” have distinct jobs to do, and they should focus on doing them without unnecessary recriminations.

This item, by TDS Contributor Robert Creamer, author of Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win, is cross-posted from The Huffington Post.
To hear some pundits tell it, the outcome of the midterms is preordained disaster for Democrats. Not so fast. Much depends on how Democratic candidates frame their efforts – and how Progressives in general frame the political debate over the next three months.
Here are nine keys to Democratic success:
1) The election narrative — the election must be framed as part of a struggle between everyday Americans and corporate special interests.
Everyday Americans believe the economy is a disaster and the country is on the wrong track. They won’t change that view until the economy actually improves.
The Republicans are doing their best to pin the blame on the leadership of Democrats. Democrats are absolutely correct to frame the election as a choice between moving America forward and going back to the failed Bush economic policies that allowed the recklessness of the Big Wall Street banks to collapse the economy, and cost eight million Americans their jobs.
But we need to make certain that we are not only offering a choice of policies – we are offering a choice of leadership. On the one side, those who will fight for the interests of everyday Americans and on the other, leaders who stand up for the interests of Wall Street, insurance companies and Big Oil.
We need to describe a narrative that is about struggle – not policies and programs.
This is especially important when Democrats talk about Congress’ many accomplishments this term. In fact, this has been the most productive Congress in recent history. But if a candidate tries to talk about “accomplishments,” that will not resonate with the experience of everyday voters.
Instead we should talk about “battles won.” Democrats won the battle with Wall Street and the Republicans to rein in the power of the big Wall Street banks. We won the battle to begin holding insurance companies accountable and prevent them from discriminating against people with “pre-existing conditions.” We won the battle to rescue the economy from the death spiral created by Bush administration policies and the recklessness of the big Wall Street banks.
The language of struggle, and “battles won” has enormous advantages:
•It allows us to talk about what Congress has done in terms that everyday voters can understand. It takes their pain and unhappiness and explains why it happened.
•It places the blame where it belongs and creates a narrative with a clear antagonist and protagonist.
•It allows us to be on the offense – not the defense.
•It positions our candidates as outsider champions for everyday voters and their values – not insider apologists for what Congress has “accomplished.”
•It creates the basis for a powerful mobilization narrative that engages the emotions of anger and inspiration.
2). The antagonist in our narrative should be defined as the corporate special interests – Wall Street, insurance companies, Big Oil – and their Republican enablers.
We are much better off doing battle with these massively unpopular special interests than we are engaging in purely partisan warfare.
It is also much easier to convince voters that the big Wall Street banks, insurance companies and Big Oil are responsible for the economic disaster (which they are) rather than simply Republican policies (which are equally responsible). By tying special interests to Republicans we go to their motivation – to whose side the Republicans are on – not simply the effectiveness of their policies. And, of course, it is true that Republicans and the big corporations are, practically speaking, synonymous.
3). Remind the voters that when the Republicans were in charge, they wrecked the economy and created zero private sector jobs.
George Bush and the Republicans cut taxes for the rich and allowed the big Wall Street Banks free rein to engage in the reckless behavior that collapsed the economy and cost eight million Americans their jobs. They said that their policies would “grow” the economy. Yet, every dime of growth went into the pockets of the wealthiest 2% of Americans and, worse yet, Bush produced zero new private sector jobs.
The New York Times reported last year that, “For the first time since the Depression, the American economy has added virtually no jobs in the private sector over a 10-year period. The total number of jobs has grown a bit, but that is only because of government hiring.”
Now compare that to the Clinton administration where the rich paid Clinton-era tax rates. Of the total of 22.5 million new jobs, 20.7 million, or 92 percent, were in the private sector.
Do we really want to give the keys back to the people who completely failed to create jobs and wrecked the economy just two years ago?
4). It’s all about turnout.
We obviously need to do everything we can to move persuadables – but at the end of the day, just as in 1994, this election will be decided by who turns out to vote. That means two things:
•Our campaigns and party committees must make a major priority out of the mechanics of GOTV. No message works better to increase turnout than: “I won’t get off your porch until you vote.”
•The language of struggle must be used to engage base Democrats who have been discouraged or demoralized. Basically, we have to describe the midterm elections as the Empire Strikes Back: “The Wall Street Banks, insurance companies, Big Oil and other wealthy special interests see this election as their best opportunity to reverse the results of the election in 2008. They want to turn back the clock to the failed economic policies of the past so they can undo Democratic victories that will hold them accountable. They want to have free rein once again to siphon off every ounce of economic growth for themselves at the expense if middle-class families. They’re counting on us to sleep through the election. We have to stop them.”

Read more…

This item by TDS Co-Editor William Galston is cross-posted from The New Republic.
I don’t agree with Paul Krugman about everything. But I do agree with him about this: It’s economically stupid and morally wrong to tolerate high unemployment for an extended period if there’s anything we could responsibly do to avoid it.
Current prospects are gloomy. Long-term unemployment is at a post-Depression high, and recovery will be painfully slow. It took a little more than two years to regain the jobs lost during the 1981-82 recession, about two and a half years after the 1990-1991 recession, and more than three and a half years after the 2001 recession. The job loss is much worse this time: six percent from the 2007 peak, versus three percent in 1981-82 and two percent in both 1990-91 and 2001. Even if job creation were to double its current pace, it would take until 2014 to regain the job total of late 2007, and longer still to attain what passes for full employment. In the interim, the economic waste and human misery will be staggering.
So what is to be done?
Setting aside the obvious political obstacles, further Keynesian stimulus would probably prove unequal to the task. Among other problems, a substantial portion of increased demand will leak out of the U.S. economy through higher imports, as it has already begun to do, and households would use some of the rest to pay down debt and increase savings.
Nor would returning to the New Deal–ie. direct job creation and hiring by the federal government–work as well as it did 75 years ago. The cost per job would be much higher, and the vastly more complex structure of regulations at every level of the federal system would bind a 21st century Harry Hopkins with myriad Lilliputian threads.
Fortunately, there is an alternative staring us in the face. Over the past generation, we have systematically underinvested in the foundation of an efficient economy and society–namely, infrastructure. Anyone who has travelled in recent years knows that our systems of transportation and information are no longer world-class. In the Washington DC area alone, the once magnificent Metro is staggering under the weight of deferred maintenance and outdated safety systems. Inadequate roads and highways yield some of the worse commutes in the nation, with negative consequences for worker productivity and economic efficiency as well as family life.
The traditional response is to use the federal government’s taxing authority to raise infrastructure funds, and appropriations to fund specific projects. This model has hit a wall: not only will it be very difficult to raise taxes in current or foreseeable circumstances, but there’s also the problem of how local and special interests influence, even determine, project selection for reasons that have nothing to do with economic efficiency.
We need a new model. Today, we have trillions of dollars of capital sitting on the sidelines earning almost no return, and millions of long-term unemployed workers who would be thrilled to receive a steady paycheck again. The task is to bring these two factors of production together around projects that make sense.
Setting aside details, the new model has three key structural features.
1.To attract private capital, projects must earn a reasonable return, which means increased reliance on user fees (tolls or levies per unit consumed) rather than general taxation.
2.Because most infrastructure projects generate public goods (such as economic growth in the areas it opens up) as well as private goods (such as easier commutes), user fees cannot capture their total worth. The market, then, will undersupply these goods unless public subsidies fill the gap. The new model requires a shift from traditional appropriations to subsidies based on the economics of individual projects.
3.To promote economic efficiency and growth, projects must be chosen on economic rather than political grounds. The new model requires a shift away from congressional dominance of the selection process toward an empowered board substantially insulated from day-to-day political pressures.
An infrastructure bank–versions of which have already been introduced in Congress–is one way of meeting these three criteria. No doubt there are other institutional designs that would as well.
The bottom line is this: Projects selected and funded in the manner I’ve sketched would help build the economy for the long-term at minimum cost to taxpayers while creating large numbers of new jobs that can only be performed here in the United States. Win-win-win, one would think. Isn’t this new model something that elected officials should be able to agree on, regardless of party and ideology? If they can’t, it will be yet more evidence of ideology trumping common sense … and of a handful of veteran appropriators more interested in preserving their own power than in promoting the public good.

This item by TDS Co-Editor William Galson is cross-posted from The New Republic.
In a recent post, Jonathan Chait rightly calls our attention to the Pew survey released July 16 that showed how voters rate political parties’ ideologies. While I agree with Chait’s interpretation of the data he cites, I want to underscore the significance of some other information in the survey–namely, where voters identify themselves in relation to the parties.
On the whole, 58 percent of voters see Democrats as liberal or very liberal, while 56 percent see Republicans as conservative or very conservative; no surprise there. But voters now place themselves much closer to the Republican Party than to the Democratic Party on this left-right continuum. Indeed, the ideological gap between the Democratic Party and the mean voter is about three times as large as the separation between that voter and the Republican Party. And, startlingly, the electorate places itself a bit closer to the Tea Party movement (which is well to the right of the Republican Party) than to the Democratic Party. All this represents a major shift from five years ago, when mean voters placed themselves exactly halfway between their ideological perceptions of the Democratic and Republican parties.
The Pew survey also shows that Democrats are far more ideologically diverse than Republicans. Twenty-four percent of Democrats describe themselves as conservative or very conservative, while only 5 percent of Republicans call themselves liberal or very liberal. Conversely, 65 percent of Republicans think of themselves as conservative or very conservative, while only 42 percent of Democrats self-identify as liberal or very liberal. This helps explain why 83 percent of Republicans see the Democratic Party as more liberal than they themselves are–while only 60 percent of Democrats place the Republican Party to the right of where they place themselves.
Shifts among Independents are especially notable. A Pew survey in June 2005 found that Independents considered the Republican Party to be twice as distant from them ideologically as the Democratic Party. Today, Independents see the Democratic Party as three times farther away than the Republican Party. In 2005, 51 percent of Independents thought that the Republican Party was more conservative than they themselves were, versus only 36 percent who thought that the Democratic Party was more liberal. Today, 56 percent of Independents see the Democratic Party as more liberal than they themselves are, compared to only 39 percent who see the Republican Party as more conservative.
In May 2009, after Obama had taken office and the broad political debate had shifted away from social issues and national security toward the economy and federal regulation, Pew found that Independents had begun to move toward the Republican Party. This month’s survey suggests a continuation of this trend in Obama’s second year.
Three politically relevant conclusions follow from these data. First, Democrats’ greater diversity means that party leaders are bound to have more trouble managing their coalition than the Republicans will theirs. Second, the Independents who helped Democrats score a notable success in the 2006 midterm elections may well do the same for Republicans in 2010.
The third conclusion to be drawn from the poll is that, whether Democrats lose control of the Congress or remain in power with much narrower majorities, Obama’s challenge will resemble the one Bill Clinton faced after 1994–namely, reestablishing his standing among those voters outside of the Democratic base whose support spells the difference between retaining and losing a national majority. I’m not necessarily suggesting that Obama should do that the way Clinton did, by championing small-bore issues–such as school uniforms–designed to send reassuring messages to the electorate. But I am suggesting that he should bring comparable focus and clarity to the task of broadening his appeal beyond his core supporters… and organize his White House to maximize the chances that he can accomplish that task.

This item by TDS contributor Robert Creamer, author of Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win, is cross-posted from The Huffington Post.
The first rule for Democratic success this November is the immutable iron law of politics: if you’re on the defense you’re losing. Who ever is on the offensive almost always wins elections.
That’s why Democratic victory requires that this election cannot simply be a referendum on the speed with which Democrats have been cleaning up the economic mess created by the Republicans and their allies on Wall Street. It must be a choice between Democrats who are charting a new path forward out of the economic ditch and the failed economic policies of the Republicans that drove us into that ditch in the first place. Democrats must make it clear that if the Republicans once again get their hands on the keys to the economy, those same, reckless failed policies will result in yet another economic catastrophe.
It’s fine, for instance, for Democratic office holders to explain the details of the Health Care bill. After all, the more that people know about it, the more they like it. But that explanation should not constitute the be all and end all of the Democratic health care message. We have to challenge the Republicans — who have been bought and paid for by the insurance companies — to justify their vote against preventing those companies from discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions. We have to challenge them to explain their proposals to eliminate Medicare and replace it with vouchers for private insurance.
The same goes in every arena. And it is doubly important because voters vote for people — not policy positions. Voters want leaders who are strong and self confident — not leaders who spend their days in a defensive crouch. They want leaders who stand up straight and defend their deeply held values — not leaders who bob and weave.
The thing we have to remember most is that Democratic positions on the issues – and the values that underlie them — are very popular. Voters generally respond very favorable to candidates who stand up for those values — for average Americans not the wealthy and special interests.
This all seems obvious to normal people who size up candidates. Unfortunately it is often less obvious to the sometimes risk averse consultant class that has so much to say about the way political campaigns are organized.
But all they need to do is take a careful look at the polling that makes the importance of staying on the offensive ever so clear.
Here for instance are some of the questions that have scored well in raising serious concerns about Republican swing district candidates in polling I’ve seen over the last month. The first two are particularly powerful among senior citizens that make up a big chunk of swing voters in many key districts.
* Candidate A took hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions from the insurance companies and now he supports abolishing Medicare and replacing it with vouchers for private insurance.
* Candidate D took tens of thousands from Wall Street Banks and now he supports privatizing Social Security and replacing a guaranteed benefit with investments in the stock market.
* Candidate E takes thousands of dollars in contributions from defense contractors and refuses to vote against wasteful and ineffective defense projects.
* Candidate F receives hundreds of thousands in donations from wealthy supporters. He is all in favor of spending hundreds of billions on tax cuts for the rich, but he refuses to support money for unemployment benefits to laid off workers or preventing states and local government from laying off teachers, firemen, and police.
* Candidate Y took $500,000 from the health insurance companies and then voted against banning discrimination against people with pre-existing conditions.
* Candidate J took $250,000 from the health insurance companies and then voted against stopping insurance companies from imposing lifetime or annual caps on coverage and dropping people when they get too expensive to insure.
* Candidate F took $50,000 from the health insurance companies and then voted against stopping insurance companies from charging women more than men and denying coverage to pregnant women because it was considered a pre-existing condition.
* Candidate U used every excuse to vote against requiring that Members of Congress like him are covered under the health care reform law just like everybody else.
* Candidate Z took $100,000 from the oil industry and refuses to support legislation that would break the stranglehold of foreign oil that leaves us more and more vulnerable to our enemies that control our oil supplies.
These are the kinds of questions that Democrats need to force onto the agenda this fall. They apply to almost every incumbent Republican, and most challengers. These statements symbolize the fundamental differences between Democrats and the Republican candidates who want to return to the failed economic policies of the Bush era that favored the interests of Wall Street, big Oil and the insurance industry — not the interests of everyday Americans.
If we take the offensive, Democrats may lose some seats this fall, but we definitely do not need to lose control of sizable majorities in either House of Congress. If we take the offensive, Conventional Wisdom will spend the evening of November 2 scratching his head and wondering how he could have been so wrong. Couldn’t happen to a nicer guy.

This item by TDS Co-Editor William Galston is cross-posted from The New Republic.
A recent Politico poll has opened up “D.C. elites” to yet another round of criticism. They’re so unlike normal Americans, you see. Forty-nine percent of them think the country is heading in the right direction (versus 27 percent of the general population), and 44 percent think the economy is heading in the right direction (versus 24 percent of the overall public). Only 6 percent of the elites think the downturn has affected them more than most Americans–unsurprisingly, considering that 45 percent of them enjoy household incomes of $150,000 or more (versus 3 percent of the public). Nor is it surprising that 68 percent of elites think the Tea Party is an evanescent fad (versus 26 percent of the general population) or that only 23 percent think that “family values” are a very important issue (versus 62 percent), or that elites say they care less about immigration, taxes, Social Security, and ethics in government than does the public.
But the survey doesn’t tell such a simple story–its more surprising findings have attracted less attention, probably because they don’t fit into the conventional narrative of-out-of-touch, inside-the-Beltway elites whose views are wholly out of sync with those of “real Americans.” But consider the following:
· 52 percent of elites think the economy/jobs is the most important issue facing the country (general public–48 percent)
· 49 percent think the war in Afghanistan will not succeed (general public–48 percent)
· 64 percent think the political system in Washington is broken (general public–72 percent)
· 51 percent are “somewhat” or “very” dissatisfied with President Obama’s response to the oil spill (general public–61 percent)
Or take an issue–who will end up footing the bill for cleaning up the oil spill?–where one would expect a big split between hot populist suspicions and cool elite assessments. 69 percent of the public thinks that the taxpayers will get stuck holding the bag. But so do 59 percent of D.C. elites, despite repeated assurances from the president on down that BP is fully responsible! Similarly, 52 percent of the American people believe that despite the recent catastrophe, offshore drilling should continue. But so do 49 percent of D.C. elites. Or what about climate change, often regarded as a distinctively upscale concern? Only 31 percent of the people think that climate change is a very important issue. The corresponding figure for D.C. elites is … 33 percent.
George Bernard Shaw once said, “Democracy is a device that insures we shall be governed no better than we deserve.” Based on the evidence in the Politico survey, he was on to something. If the American people throw stones at their government, most of the projectiles will hit a mirror.