Saturday, March 05, 2005

Losing the victory

Digby argues that the Social Security fight may be the opportunity the left needs to re-establish the argument that government can actually have a positive impact on people's lives:

I realize that there has been a full generation of brainwashing about how the government is always bad and that everyone will get rich, rich, rich if the government just gets off their backs. But I have a sense that the force of this argument is getting stale. The assault on social security may just be the thing that opens people's minds to what their philosophy really means. And it may just open a window to allow the idea back in to the minds of the citizens that government programs can be an affirmative good. Social Security works. It's more efficient, more fair and more inexpensive than any of the alternatives. People apparently instinctively know this. Since the Republicans decided to bring this to the forefront we should take credit for it and piggyback our new progressive ideas on its back. It's been so long since anyone had the nerve to do it, that it sounds downright fresh.

The last time a similar moment presented itself, Democrats they completely failed to capitalize on it. I'm speaking of the 1995 government shutdown. Newt Gingrich, thinking that Clinton was permanently hobbled following the Democrat's defeats in 1994, decided to play an extortion game with Clinton. The president would either have to sign on to some radical Republican programs or Gingrich would effectively block the continued financing of the government.

Gingrich didn't count on two things: (1) that Clinton would stand up to him and (2) that the shutdowns would actually create sympathy for government workers. The Republicans had effectively stigmatized the government as a bunch of faceless bureaucrats who love nothing more than burying the good people of American under mountains of paperwork. But, when the government shut down, the nightly news was full of stories of government workers who were effectively out of work. Suddenly a face was put on the civil service and many people came to realize that the government actually did perform some useful services.

It was a case of the American people not knowing what they had until they lost it. By shutting down the government, Gingrich effectively neutered 20 years of Republican anti-government propaganda.

Clinton won that fight, won back his political strength, and used that strength to win re-election in 1996.

But the Democrats failed to capitalize on Gingrich's blunder by building on the temporary sympathy for government workers. The Democrats could have used it as the launching point for a campaign to win back support for the government. But instead they simply let the Republicans off the hook.

If the Social Security fight turns out to be a similar defeat for the Republicans the Democrats better be ready to capitalize it. If they do not then they will lose the victory.

Best 'Dean Scream' joke

From Steve Sack:

(courtesy Hoffmania)

Weak responses will kill us

This AP story has more information on the Bush administrations plan to use taxpayer funds to support its political agenda.

WASHINGTON - A new Social Security war room inside the Treasury Department is pumping out information to sell President Bush's plan, much like any political campaign might do.

It's part of a coordinated effort by the Bush administration. The internal, taxpayer-funded campaigning is backed up by television advertisements, grass-roots organizing and lobbying from business and other groups that support the Bush plan.

The president's opponents are organized too, though they do not enjoy the resources of the White House or Treasury to sell their message.

Unfortunately, the oppositions response to this is weak at best:

"They have the right to say their piece and to respond, but to create a whole team of PR experts to try and influence the media, I think, is an excessive use of taxpayer money," said Joan Claybrook, president of Public Citizen, who opposes the Bush plan.

Don't say "I think" Joan. Say "it is". Say "it is also, quite possibly, illegal." If you are going to be a spokesperson you have to use strong words.

Of course, the Bushies are trying to confuse the issue by saying that this is similar to communication groups used by Clinton. It is the job of the opposition to show where there are differences and how those differences are, quite possibly, illegal.

They are going to try and use the vast resources of the federal government to sell Bush's program. By hitting back hard on the question of legality we can hobble that effort before it gets off the ground.

Speaking of hackery...

Alan Greenspan's is almost as bad as the elite media:

Questioning the wisdom of Alan Greenspan in political Washington is akin to challenging the integrity of the pope in Rome, so figures in both parties agreed yesterday that the top Senate Democrat's description of the Federal Reserve Board chairman as a "political hack" was a blunder.

Now, when I first read this lead paragraph I was prepared to be outraged that, yet again, Democrats were undermining fellow Democrats by pushing Republican talking points. What the hell are these guys thinking by going along with the description of Reid's comment as a blunder?

But then I read the article and you know what? Not a single Democrat, not even anonymously, is quoted as saying that Reid's comment was a blunder. Indeed the article is full of quotes from Democrats taking Greenspan to task, though none of them specifically used or supported Reid's "political hack" comment.

So, once again, we have an example, yet again, of the elite media creating a false sense of balance where none exists. Of course Republicans would be against Reid's comment. But it might be useful if Dan Milbank and Nell Henderson, the writers of this piece, were to actually back up their lead assertion that Democrats were similarly critical.

(BTW, the headline on this article includes the infamous "Some Democrats Say" lead. That should have been the first clue that hackery was imminent.)

Tuesday, March 01, 2005

The dangers of mockery

Atrios and others are openly mocking today's David Brooks' column about the sign of the apocalypse that is the rise in separate checking accounts for married couples.

Now, I can understand the temptation to mock this kind of silliness (notice my "sign of the apocalypse" comment). But I think many are missing the deeper point behind Brooks' column. One of the essential elements of the Republican message, the message that has given them the leg up in the political world, is that they are the defenders of the American family. Brooks' column is all about defending the family even if the thing he is defending it against is laughable. As long as he appears to be defending the family, it doesn't matter if the monster he is fighting off is a chimera.

This is not a column meant to persuade those who aren't already convinced that the American family is in serious peril. It is a column meant to persuade those who are convinced. It is meant to persuade them that their fears are justified and that this is just another sign that things are getting worse so they better elect more Republicans if theywant to save the family as a fundamental American institution.

Brooks' surface point is vacuous at best, but his underlying message plays right to fear that reside in the heart of the Republican base. And by openly mocking it we are playing into the stereotype that liberals don't understand the danger that is right in front of them.

Liberals need to understand that this kind of mockery is really just self-congratulatory back-slapping ("Ha! Look at the foolish Bobos and their foolish concerns! Good thing we aren't so foolish!"). It does nothing to reverse the political trend of this country. It may, in fact, make it worse.

So should we take the concern about separate checking accounts seriously? No. But should we take the deeper, underlying concerns seriously? Most definitely!

Being Alan Colmes

So, Alan Colmes finally called Ann Coulter on the carpet for her behavior and many in the blogosphere are applauding him for finally showing some backbone.

Well, I'm sorry, but I'm not going to join that chorus.

First of all, the whole takedown lasted about 10 seconds. Coulter was at first flumoxed by Colmes' sudden sign of justifiable outrage. But she quickly recovered her talking points and kept hammering away at them. Colmes simply let the "your a liar" accusation pass after his initial expression of outrage. A man worthy of praise would not have allowed her to recover.

But, even more disappointing, was that after years of being the right-wing's favorite token liberal opposition, the one time Colmes expressed real backbone against these neanderthals was the one time one of them made the mistake of directly calling Colmes a liar.

Ann Coulter has been calling Democrats liars and traitors for years, but she usually does it in either general terms or against people that few Democrats would like to be seen defending or against Democrats who aren't there to defend themselves. Hers has been a collective attack, yet Colmes has always treated it as if she were attacking a group not including himself. It was only when Coulter directly called Colmes a liar that he expressed any meaningful outrage.

Alan, Coulter has been calling you a liar, to your face, for years! Stop pretending that her accusations don't apply to you. She's been kicking sand in your face and you've been taking it as if it were of no consequence. Don't expect that I will applaud you just because she broke the rules by directly attacking you. If you want me to consider you a mensch then you better start expressing the same kind of outrage even when it is not you who is being directly attacked.

You are a Democrat. Coulter considers Democrats to be traitors. Therefore Coulter considers you to be a traitor. Figure it out.

Monday, February 28, 2005

Argue what you believe. Believe in what you argue.

The Moose is out with a suggestion that Democrats pull a "Sister Souljah" on Hollywood.

The short of it is that Chuck Schumer, in his role as head of the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee, is actively recruiting pro-life Representative Jim Langevin to run against Republican Lincoln Chafee in Rhode Island and a group of Hollywood actors, producers and philanthropists have signed a letter protesting this action, saying it undermines the core and soul of the party. The Moose suggests that Schumer should, ever so politely, tell the signers of that letter to shove it. The Moose suggests that by doing so Schumer will demonstrate that Democrats aren't beholden to Hollywood liberals.

Now let me be up front about this. I don't know anything about this situation beyond what The Moose is reporting in his post. I don't know anything about Jim Langevin. I don't know to what extent Mr. Langevin's position on abortion has influenced Mr. Schumer's decision to recruit him. I don't know anything about the inner workings of Rhode Island politics. I don't know if this is or is not a wise choice.

But I do know some things about the important role that triangulation has played in recent Democratic history. Triangulation is the Clintonian strategy in which a Democrat convinces the great middle part of America that they share their values by openly attacking people to the left that do things that make the middle uncomfortable (rap music, gay marriage, etc.). It was a strategy that probably helped Clinton win the presidency.

But it has also knee-capped the party as a whole. When Democrats spend an inordinate amount of time attacking fellow Democrats it leaves the impression that Democrats are people worthy of attack. Thus, attacking another Democrat or a fellow traveler is something that should be done only when it is necessary. Not when it is political convenient.

The problem with triangulation is not the attacks on any individual example of questionable behavior but instead the reason for those attacks. The problem with triangulation is that has been used as a cold, calculating political move rather than a heartfelt expression of honest disagreement with those attacked.

Case in point: Howard Dean made a name for himself by attacking Democratic appeasement to the Republican agenda. But he did it because he honestly believed it was the wrong thing to do and that if it continued it would doom the Democrats. I don't think anyone, even Dean, expected him to get the kind of positive response he got for his attacks. But he didn't do it for the positive response. He did it because it was the right thing to do.

Now, if Schumer honestly feels that the signers of that letter have got it all wrong then yes, he should make it clear that they have got it all wrong. But if Schumer were to turn on Hollywood out of some calculated attempt to curry favor with the great middle then he will simply add weight to the stereotype of Democrats having no core values. Which, ironically, is precisely what the signers of that letter are warning against.

Argue what you believe. Believe in what you argue. The rest will follow.