The Washington Post guest op-ed by Daily Kos founder and lefty blogging all-father Markos Moulitsas “calls the question” on the netroots well-known but poorly crystallized concerns around the Hillary Clinton (see the GMD Vermont poll here) presidential candidacy (emphasis added):
Our crashing of Washington’s gates wasn’t about ideology, it was about pragmatism. Democrats haven’t won more than 50 percent of the vote in a presidential election since 1976…
…Afraid to offend, [Clinton] has limited her policy proposals to minor, symbolic issues — such as co-sponsoring legislation to ban flag burning. She doesn’t have a single memorable policy or legislative accomplishment to her name. Meanwhile, she remains behind the curve or downright incoherent on pressing issues such as the war in Iraq…
…[Clinton is] surrounded by the very people who ground down the activist base in the 1990s and have continued to hold the party’s grassroots in utter contempt. The operation is rudderless, without any sign of significant leadership. And to top it off, a sizable number of Democrats don’t think she could win a general election, anyway.
This article may mark a turning point – formally pitting the netroots against Clinton in the Democratic primary. But it also calls a question with relevance across political races top to bottom: Is “running to the center” really the “pragmatic” strategy to win over so-called swing voters?
It sure looks like the answer is both “yes” (for Republicans) and “no” (for Democrats). Getting many Democratic operatives to accept that however, is problematic for a very simple reason.
More below the fold…
Richard Nixon famously advised Republican candidates to run to the right during the primaries and run back to the center in general elections. Good advice to his Party when you consider the observations of observers like Washington Watch’s James Zogby’s in 1999:
image of rigidity and mean-spiritedness that came to characterize Republicans after their 1994 congressional victory and the prolonged impeachment drama
Or the Right’s own Mona Charen back in 1996:
At a recent gathering of conservative journalists, the proposition was widely accepted that Republicans must guard against seeming hard-hearted. Don’t withhold schooling from the children of illegal immigrants, a leading Republican politician was counseled. Don’t be seen as uncaring or cruel.
Or how about closer to today, and from a site we all know so well? From freerepublic.com in 2002:
With such emotional issues as children, families, health care, hunger, homelessness, poverty, and gun control, anyone who argues against liberal proposals risks being seen as uncaring, the first step to losing the hearts and minds
Spot a common theme over the years? Good. Now hold that thought and see if you can catch another. From a recent Pew analysis of attitudes towards the Parties and Congress:
The Democrats are seen as “weak,” disorganized,” and “confused,” with a few mentions of “slow” and “struggling” tossed in.
(I won’t inundate you with multiple examples of the views towards Democrats, as it has been roundly discussed in virtually every blog there is.)
Now, set aside for a moment the die hards on the left and right who see the other side as closet fascists or godless abortionists and focus on these swing voters. Notice the terms used on both sides are not terms of policy. “Hard-hearted,” “rigid,” “weak,” “confused.” There is no “hard-hearted” lobby, no “confused” caucus — these are judgements of character. Ever scratch your head reading accounts like this one from CNN correspondent Dick Uliano?
Yes. I talked to a few people who saw the debate and the people that I spoke with liked what they saw. These were people, by the way, for the most part, who had a candidate in mind, were supporters of either President Bush or Senator Kerry going in. And coming out they felt that what their candidate said simply affirmed their position.
There was one woman I talked to from Phoenix, Arizona, a woman in public relations, by the way, who is an undecided voter, undecided going in. And, Carol, after 90 minutes of debate and watching two previous debates, she’s still undecided and not sure who’s she’s going to vote for. When will she make up her mind? She said probably on election day.
How could such people still be undecided when the two candidates were nowhere near each other on virtually every conceivable policy? Because they weren’t intending to cast their votes based on policy. They often didn’t know policy, felt confused by it, even suggesting in interviews that this deficit in understanding was some sort of virtue:
I’m an independent small “l” libertarian who does not agree with the LP or Mr. Badnarik. Yet I see both Kerry and Bush (in that order for national security reasons only) as really terrible choices for President.
If it weren’t for the fact that I live in California where Kerry, without a doubt, will take the electoral vote with a projected 18% lead, I would be really hard-pressed to make a decision.
No, as Stephen Colbert might say, these swing voters always — always — go with their “gut.” And that translates into a cursory judgement on the candidates’ characters. Now both “teams” start off with the built in character deficits outlined above. These define the hueristics swing voters use to begin their judgements on.
So, the obvious question is: how do you “pleasantly surprise” the cynical swing voter who starts his or her judgement of you in the crapper if they see you as, say, rigid and hard-hearted? Obviously, you show them you’re not rigid. That you can compromise. That you are capable of moderation. A “compassionate conservative.” “Kinder and gentler.”
So the next question is, how do you impress the swing voter who sees you as weak and confused?
Stand firm and strong Dig in and show some backbone.
So obviously, the running to the center strategy is a winner for Republicans to this swing voter demographic, but it only confirms to the same voters every negative impression they already have of Democrats.
Of course the question is, was Bill Clinton an anomoly? Al From and the centrist Democratic Ledership Council would have us believe that his “moderation” was the key to his victory among swing voters, but as Markos so eloquently demonstrates above, the Clinton approach has hardly been beneficial, and in fact he did not win a majority in eaither election. Where did the swing voters go? Well, many obviously went to Ross Perot, but some obviously went to Clinton. Was that because he was a moderate?
Although this sort of judgement is difficult to objectively quantify, I would say absolutely not. Bill Clinton is an extraordinary communicator with an uncanny ability to connect to an audience. Despite all the jokes, people did sense that he “felt their pain,” and therefore judged him with their “guts” to be a man of “character.” In other words, they did exactly what they always do.
Furthermore, when Clinton turned out to be a manof extraordinarily weak character, he only served to further solidify the negative impression of Democrats, even causing that judgement to creep beyond the swing voters into the Democratic base itself, causing a grim sort of self-loathing. Wonder why Dean struck such a chord with Democrats and Independents alike? SImple: he was the antidote to Bill Clinton.
So why dont many of the Democratic consultants and power brokers get this? Are they stupid?
Not at all. They feel Democrats should move to the center because that’s where they are. And like all of us, they think they are right and if everybody thought like them everything would work out. Rather than come out and admit such an ideologically based motivation (remember — these are folks who see themselves as strategists and above ideology), they cling to their oft-repeated Bill Clinton narrative and tell themselves (and us) that it’s not about ideology, it’s about winning elections.
In a memo to Democratic leaders last week, Mr. From and DLC President Bruce Reed attacked the party’s liberal, activist base, which they said was “defined principally by weakness abroad and elitist, interest-group liberalism at home.”
“That’s the wing that lost 49 states in two elections [in 1972 and 1984], and transformed Democrats from a strong national party into a much weaker regional one,” they said.
[…and yes, isn’t this nice that this quote is from a Republican website? With friends like Al…]
But this assertion is demonstrably untrue. Those well outside the fray looking in objectively could see it easily (from the Indian press):
The Republicans’ success with this message was borne out in interviews with voters towards the end of the campaign and in exit polls, where even those critical of Mr. Bush on a host of issues from Iraq to the economy were persuaded that Mr. Kerry was an unreliable alternative. Better to be consistently wrong than indecisively right, they seemed to be saying.
As we all know, the run to the center often loses us elections, inasmuch as it’s seen as vascillating (a genuine centrist who spoke with calrity and committment would do fine, I’m sure). But that’s where these DLC-type folks want to be.
In my time working for the Vermont Democratic Party, I’ve seen the range. There are folks currently in positions of campaign decision making who have shared shockingly conservative viewpoints those times when they’ve “slipped” and let their feelings known (there’s one I remember whose only opinions I ever heard were complaints about choice and Democratic Party “class warfare” — imagine my surprise at hearing RNC talking points in the Democratic Party office). On the other hand, I know of folks who quietly admitted to me voting for Nader!
But it’s these conservatives who are always the ones who insist candidates have to run to the center to win, and their fingerprints are in tricky places. Many grumbling voices in the Statehouse of late fear that State Senator Peter Welch, who truly is a solid liberal and good lawmaker, has been putting entirely too much stock in the opinions of this crowd (most recently by quickly ceding ground to the NRA on legislation regulating shooting ranges), and in the process may be seriously jeopardizing his chances to hold the US House seat being vacated by Bernie Sanders.
It’s tough to watch good people cede their judgement to such a clearly self-serving and fatally flawed electioneering strategy. But we have to be loud and persistent to our candidates that the DLCers are wrong. The evidence is there and the tide is turning, but it remains difficult to be louder from a distance than the person whispering directly into their ears…
