Macho Nachos: Tied to Failure

« Human Tragedies | Main | Thank God for the Federal Judiciary »

Tied to Failure

As I have watched the Democrats' consensus position on the war in Iraq change over the last three years, my emotional response has run the full gambit from anger to horror to disgust. The anger resulted from their duplicity, when they attempted to court the anti-war vote while simultaneously defending their support for the war. As they attempted to make a dizzying array of justifications for why they should be loved by both sides of the fence, the Democrats bumbled their way to a crushing loss in 2004, which sent them all scurrying for answers.

To our very great pleasure, Jerome Armstrong has found the answer for the Democrats:

The real defeatists today are not those protesting the war. The real defeatists are those in power and their silent supporters in the opposition party who are reduced to repeating "Stay the course". Gary Hart. He's got tough medicine for the Senators that voted in favor of invading Iraq. That should be simple enough for all Democrats to agree-- that staying the course is not an option.

It is hard to decide which is better news - that Democrats are listening to Gary Hart again, or that there has never been a political party more tied to failure than the modern Democrats.

There is, of course, a sense in which the minority party automatically becomes the "opposition party." When a single party controls both chambers of Congress and the Executive branch, they will of course drive the agenda for what is happening in the country. For the Democrats at the federal level right now, there is little hope of pushing positive agenda matters through most committees right now, much less into law. So, as a matter of practicality, there are two options left to the Democrats on many issues: (1) Obstruction and (2) complaint.

What the Democrats have yet to realize (and, to be fair, it took the Republicans a long, long time to figure this out as well), is that opposition is not a winning electoral strategy. They have, with the exception of a delusional few, realized that they are, in fact, losing. However, the disaster for them is that they have determined that the solution to their losing problem is to make their opposition even more rancid. Perhaps, they have rationalized, the problem is that the American public has not yet realized just how much they hate Republicans and everything they stand for.

This kind of strategy is all well and good for riling up the base, and creating a lot of sound and fury. However, it's not so much something average Americans will latch onto. What the Donks do not realize is that the American people, by and large, are an optimistic bunch of people. Sure, we get angry sometimes, and there are moments when we are capable of despair, doom and gloom. But part of what has made America a great nation is our irrepressible optimistic spirit - our refusal to capitulate in difficult circumstances. That spirit, although arguably diminished what it was in times past, is still a large part of our national consciousness. And part of that spirit is that we don't like whiners and defeatists.

And thus the Democrats stumble unwittingly into further electoral defeat in 2006, in that they have hitched their entire wagon to defeat in Iraq, and complaint about the President's prosecution of that war. There is very little question that the public at this point is tiring of the war and that the President's numbers are suffering because of it. Mistakenly, this has led them to believe that a party of folks screaming "I told you so," at the top of their lungs can capitalize on this discontent. Perhaps, if the election were held this November, they could (even though the polling numbers are equally consistent that the Democrats are not benefiting from the President's drop in popularity). Given that the next major elections will not happen until next November, they will not.

Inbetween now and next November, a number of highly significant events are going to take place. The Iraqis are going to have a vote on ratifying their constitution. They are going to begin to get on their feet as an autonomous government. And, one way or another, some of our troops will begin to come home. Make no mistake that the Democrats are praying that exactly none of these things will happen. What they do not realize is that even if they get their wish, and the situation goes to absolute pot in Iraq - absent a positive policy vision, that will not translate into electoral wins for them.

Say what you want about Bush, or the decision to invade Iraq, or the subsequent execution of the invasion/occupation. Attempting to place a democracy in the heart of the Middle East was a grand policy vision. If this policy vision succeeds, and the Democrats continue down their path, they will have tied themselves to a large anchor and tossed that anchor into the sea. This is a risk, however, that the Democrats seem to be willing to take, given that they are absolutely confident that the vision will fail. I believe, however, given the character of the American people, that even if they are successful in their wager, they will have garnered absolutely nothing with the public, except the right to say, "I told you so."

Saying "I told you so," is satisfying for the person saying it. It's gratifying to revel in the knowledge that you were right and all others were wrong. It's also natural to trumpet your "I told you so," claim to the hilltops, making sure that absolutely everyone knows just exactly how right you were. There's only one small problem. Nobody wants to hear "I told you so." Not even folks who are sitting on the fence. It's the political equivalent of acting like a nine-year-old brat, and it will backfire.

The reaction, however, is so very tempting and so very self-satisfying that I don't think the Democrats will be able to avoid reveling in it. I don't see a Newt Gingrinch on their side who is championing the kind of positive agenda that dissatisfied voters can latch on to. Instead, the folks grabbing microphones on the other side of the aisle are folks whose only mode of communication is complaint, whose only hope is failure, and who are, moreover, genuinely unlikeable people. Howard Dean, Michael Moore and Markos Moulitsas are probably genuinely loved by their followers. The failure of the Democrats is to realize how these folks are perceived by the broader population, and further how disastrous it is to march them out before the voting public screaming, "I told you so!"

Many Republicans will remember that in the wake of the 1992 elections, in which all three branches of government were delivered to the Democrats, there were two distinct and necessary elements that led to the victory of 1994. First, you had Rush Limbaugh keeping the base fired up behind the scenes, and providing a voice for those who felt disenfranchised by the current makeup of the government. Rush even went so far as to publish a book called, "See, I Told You So." As I recall, he at one point promised that he'd release a sequel "See, I Told You So" book every year that Clinton was in office (thankfully, we were spared 8 of these books.) On the other hand, the wonkish and smiling Newt Gingrich became the public face of the party, pushing a positive agenda in the Contract with America which was at once simple to understand, popular in its principles, and daring in its scope. The Democrats these days have managed to out-Rush Rush in their scorn for the other side. Where they have failed is in locating someone who is at least marginally likeable, who has a grasp on what the American people really want (Free hint: It's not socialized health care), whom they can place before the microphones to propound a positive legislative agenda that the American people can stand behind.

What is further depressing, if you are a Democrat, is that it's hard to determine where such a person might potentially even come from. Who do they have waiting in the wings who engenders warm feelings in the average American? Harry Reid? God help us, Joe Biden? Easily their best hope was probably Harold Ford Jr., but they denied him a platform from which he could have done some real damage in favor of the immacuately coiffed and intellectually substandard Nancy Pelosi. Likewise, Barack Obama is too new to the game and has no real bully pulpit to use, at least for another 4 years.

Unless they discover a purpose, a vision, and a personality, the Democrats will be doomed to repeat the same political note over and over again - namely, tying themselves to the possibility of American failure in Iraq, or at the very least, Republican failure at home. However, they will always have a problem taking this approach: no one is inspired by someone who looks for failure, who barely contains their glee when it occurs, and who seeks to capitalize on a misfortune that affects a whole country. That is not the sort of agenda that almost anyone votes for, and it certainly isn't one that's capable of flipping a ten-seat majority.

So, here's hoping the Democrats keep taking Jerome Armstrong's advice. Given the performance of the Republicans recently, we're going to need all the help we can get.

September 12, 2005 in Democrats | Permalink

Comments

You guys have control of the Presidency and both houses of Congress yet you take the time to write a story about how you are going to beat the Democrats in 2006. Why?

Newsflash....you guys already won it is time to stop running for office and time to start governing. When are those drugs from Canada going to be available? When can we expect a national energy plan? When can we expect universal health insurance? When can we expect the budget and trade deficits to go away? When can we expect Iran to stop enriching Uranium? When can we expect the Korean peninsula to be free of nuclear weapons? When can we expect China to stop stealing billions of dollars by pirating our intellectual property?
Etc. Etc.

The real problem is that Republicans are so good at politics that we no longer have any policy debates in this country. It is all politics all the time.

History will judge your party by its accomplishments not by its campaigns. Off the top of my head I can't think of too many accomplishments. The outcomes of Iraq and Afganistan are far from certain and the new bankruptcy bill, the new medicare prescription drug bill, CAFTA, tax cuts, Terri Schiavo, and drilling in ANWR won't make it into the history books.

What has this President and this Congress done to make America a better place? If the Dems find a way to make America ask itself that question in 2006 your permanent majority status may be in some jeopardy. I wouldn't worry about it though, Rove and his ilk will find a way to talk about Gay marriage or intelligent design and you guys can win on those issues.

Posted by: Blue Neponset | September 12, 2005 at 12:10 PM

The real issues are this:
Policy Vision
Is America a better place?

Here is the deal my friend the Democrats for better or worse are without a clear and intelligent vision. What is worse for the democratic party is that Americans know this and are largely swayed (and probably rightly so) by leadership that has a direction they can understand and buy into.

So my brother from different parents you make a good point. The Dems ain't got now unifying vision. What they do have is 35-40% of the vote in Oklahoma in every election.

"So what?" you ask. Think of it this way, if everytime your favorite team plays ball against overwhelming odds would you still show up to cheer? Maybe because you believe in what that team stands for even if they can't get the big play makers up to bat. How many years did the Red Sox have fans?

What I have seen after three years as a corporate consultant is that businesses and political parties as well thrive based on two opposing yet coexisting aspects.

One is the core purpose and values that define an organization. Ask anybody what is the history and the goal of the Democratic party or the Republican party and you will hear back a litany saying what these organizations value and stand for in the most basic terms.

Along with that core purpose there needs to be vision of the future. And it better be compelling or you go no where. Republicans are masters of finding a compelling visions to lay out.

In 2000 it was a vision of fiscal conservatism and isolationism. In 2002 and 2004 it was a strong and decisive unified part standing together facing outward. In 2006 how will the spin masters spin it only time can tell. it's hard given FEMA and federal governments reaction time to say decisive and given the fact that everybody regardless of credo is pointing fingers it is hard to say unified. Katrina has changed a lot of views held in America it will be interesting to see where things go from here.

Is a America a better place after 4 years of the executive and legislative branch being on the same page. It's very hard to decide. When i come home I do not feel that America is necessarily a better place than it was when I left. But I am only one person, what matters is how the voters percieve their lives come election day.

Kudos man for noticing the Dems are sightless, but when they have a vision there is a built in fan base waiting to mobilize. Don't overlook the fact that most red states still have thirty to forty percent of voters going Democrat even when they KNOW they have no chance. How many voters will show up when they are courted by intelligent candidates with striking visions?

Red state is an illusion.

By they way I live in a red country isn't that ironic...

Posted by: Johnny D | September 14, 2005 at 12:52 AM

My long lost half-twin brother!

It's good to see you perusing around my blog. I'll presume my wife pointed you this way and drop her a line of thanks.

I agree with your point about the volatility of the electorate - after all, if you go back about 30 years, most "red" states were "blue" and vice-versa.

Your other point about a built-in fan base is also true. There are a lot of people who self-identify as Donkeys or Elephants based upon history and parental affiliation than anything the parties currently believe or practice.

For instance, in Arkansas, I met a lot of really and truly racist people who were in their 60s (or over). Thought black people were inherently inferior, and still really and truly thought that interracial marriage should be outlawed. Probably would have favored a comeback for segregation. All of these people invariably voted Democrat. That's a built-in fan base.

And so the fight goes on for the 20% or so of folks in this country who are persuadable. What is a shame is that this 20% generally makes decisions based on what I like to call "the BBQ factor." In other words, "which candidate would you rather have over to your back yard for a BBQ?" You look at pretty much every Presidential election since 1980, and the candidate with the higher "BBQ factor" wins. Sooner or later, the Donks are gonna catch on to this, and quit nominating candidates who are generally stiff and unlikeable people. If that eventuality coincides with the emergence of a policy-wonk Newt type of character, the current state of political affairs in this country could change in a hurry.

Speaking of Red, how are things where you are?

Posted by: MachoNachos | September 14, 2005 at 10:36 AM

Some very good points about the Donkeyhaddeen, but like my friend often says, "I keep voting for Republicans, but I keep getting Democrats."

Posted by: trentk269 | September 14, 2005 at 08:16 PM

Donkeyhaddeen. Nice.

Your point is well taken.

Posted by: MachoNachos | September 14, 2005 at 09:11 PM