Site Presented By
Sunday, Jul 12, 2009
A longtime Republican who switched parties because of George W. Bush offers the DNC some practical advice from the grass roots.
Dec 21, 2004 | When Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe e-mailed me and 3 million other worker bees for feedback on what went wrong for the Democrats in the 2004 presidential election, I was grateful because I thought they'd never ask. Although their request was long overdue, it's better to be late than never to open channels for input from the bottom up.
As someone who spent 64 years as a committed Republican before I became an independent under Ronald Reagan and then was driven by George W. Bush into the Democratic Party (to which, working in a presidential campaign for the first time, I donated time, effort and loads of money), perhaps I have a different perspective to offer about 1) why the Republicans won, 2) why the Democrats lost and 3) what we can do about this situation. I do understand that as the new girl on the block and an ex-Republican, I was not in a position to criticize or have much credibility with the old-line pros during the campaign, but I hope Democrats will listen now.
The Republicans won, first, because they were absolutely better organized, meaning that their organization was better administrated, especially from the grass roots up. I got tired of hearing "I belong to no organized political party -- I'm a Democrat" when that was an excuse for unfocused, sloppy work. For example, both parties made fantastic, successful efforts at registering new voters. But Republicans then followed up on that success and closed the sale; they used their database to recontact voters and took their selected voters by the hand to the polls.
Second, the Republicans presented a coherent philosophy. This gave them a protocol for comment on every issue, instead of relying on a hodgepodge of separate, ad hoc responses. Thus even when it seemed as if they had internal contradictions or apparently hypocritical approaches, their message could still be presented as consistent and values based -- and the voters bought in to their vision. For example, in overtly asserting that an untrammeled American free-enterprise system in a market-based economy produces a good society for all, they were able to excuse the party's excessive deregulation, pandering to robber barons, tax cuts for the "investor class," outsourcing, etc.
Third, the GOP pretty much controlled the fourth estate by using patriotism and security (in other words, flag and fear) to frame every issue and every policy and to divert attention from or investigation of any seeming mistake. It brooked no criticism and instantly punished the slightest opposition, which resulted in self-censorship among the very institutions and people who should have been keeping the Republicans honest. (This includes the Democrats as well as the media.) For example, anyone who questioned the con game of the Iraq invasion was shamed and defamed to the point where even John Kerry accepted the Republican framing of the war and felt he had to salute and "report for duty" at his own party convention. How pathetic.
Fourth, whether out of a Machiavellian power grab or out of personal conviction, the Republicans accepted and promoted a specific religious dogma, which enabled them to partition off certain sections of voters and then bamboozle them into voting against their own economic best interests. This also gave the GOP a solid base of voters fanatically committed to promoting Republican candidates -- and incidentally excused any ethical lapses in a sort of "ends justifies the means" rationale. For example: Gay marriage and abortion amendments are desirable; gun control is not. And torture at places like Abu Ghraib is OK if it's part of the fight against the so-called Islamic religious terrorists. Thus Republicans were able to impose a bizarre double standard.
Fifth, the Republicans were extremely successful in refining negative attack campaigns (not just ads but whole campaigns), right down to the local precinct level. And their 527 "independent" groups (I consider these to be the guerrillas or irregular units of the political armies) accomplished wonders in diluting the Democrats' strong points and thus diverting their resources. The Democrats' attack programs never managed the same traction, possibly because they were truly more independent and thus less purposefully focused. Indeed, over time Republicans have successfully branded Democrats as "elitist," bleeding-heart, big-government socialists from big cities -- not part of the mainstream American way of life -- while branding themselves as good ol' boy, rural "just folks." How ironic.
The Democrats lost, first, because they accepted the Republican game plan and generally fought on terrain chosen by the GOP -- which included the "war on terrorism" (why not a war on terrorists, which would be more winnable in a timely way than Bush's more or less endless religious crusade?), "homeland security" (where did this "homeland" concept come from anyway, and just what does it mean?), and "moral values" as defined by its politicized religious dogma.
Second, the Democrats did not promote their basic political philosophy or value system, which truly has roots deep in Anglo-Saxon history and our own Constitution. Instead, they came up only with special-interest, ad hoc issue statements, whose details were easily and handily criticized. Although much of what the Democrats said inferred elements of their honorable philosophy, no coherent presentation of it has been made in recent memory. The result: Over and over Kerry replied to Bush, or attacked Bush, by saying, "When I am president, I will (or will not) do such and such." No, no, no. Frame the answer first based on a Democratic principle like individual responsibility and personal privacy, then say, "Abortion is a personal medical question, and the state should get its head out from between our legs. Do not say that "choice" is the principle.
Other themes come to mind: responsible stewardship of our resources for the sake of our children's future; espousing a level playing field rather than catering to special privilege (an answer to the selfish Republicans who confuse affluence with righteousness: "We who have plenty of money are beloved of God and should get more"); separation of church and state is good for religion as well as necessary for effective government (and an established church is so 17th century); many of life's situations should not subject to politicization, and the state should not be corrupted for use by any one class, business or religion; a "decent respect to the opinions of mankind" recognizes the historical comity of nations, and it was good enough for our Founding Fathers to say. And so forth.
